Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina): Management Plan 2020

Official title: Management Plan for the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada 2020

Species at Risk Act
Management plan series

Photo Snapping Turtle


The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996) agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of management plans for listed species of special concern and are required to report on progress within five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency is the competent minister under SARA for the Snapping Turtle and has prepared this management plan, as per section 65 of SARA. To the extent possible, the management plan has been prepared in cooperation with the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as per section 66(1) of SARA.

Success in the conservation of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this plan and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Parks Canada Agency or any other jurisdiction alone. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this plan for the benefit of the Snapping Turtle and Canadian society as a whole.

Implementation of this management plan is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.


The first drafts of this document were prepared by Alain Branchaud and Marie-José Ribeyron (formerly with Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Quebec Region). The contributions of Sylvain Giguère and Pierre-André Bernier (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Quebec Region), Samara Eaton, Karen Potter and Andrew Boyne (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Atlantic Region), Angela McConnell, Shane de Solla and Lee Voisin (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario Region), Jeff Robinson and Bruna Peloso (formerly with Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario Region), Andrew Didiuk (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – Prairie Region), Manon Dubé and Véronique Brondex (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service – National Capital Region), Joanne Tuckwell (Parks Canada), Diane Amirault-Langlais and Éric Tremblay (Kouchibouguac National Park of Canada), Megan Crowley (Kejimkujik National Park of Canada), Maria Papoulias and Leonardo Cabrera (Rouge National Urban Park), Lisa Hagar (Industry Canada), Jocelyne Jacob (National Capital Commission), Simon Pelletier, Yohann Dubois and Isabelle Gauthier (Quebec Department of Forests, Wildlife and Parks), Maureen Toner (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources), and Mark Elderkin (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources), as well as Joe Crowley, Amelia Argue, Julia Holder, Terese McIntosh, Alan Dextrase, Jay Fitzsimmons, Vivian Brownell, Patrick Hubert and Glenn Desy (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry) and Rachel McDonald (Department of National Defence) are also acknowledged and appreciated.

Environment and Climate Change Canada also extends thanks to all individuals and organizations that provided input and comments during the public consultation period to improve this management plan, including various Indigenous organizations, non-governmental organizations, citizens and other stakeholders.

Executive summary

The Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) was assessed as Special Concern by COSEWIC in 2008, and was listed as Special Concern under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act in 2011. It is one of the largest freshwater turtles in Canada. It has a keeled carapace, exposed limbs, hooked jaw, long neck and long tail. Snapping Turtles occupy a wide range of habitats but prefer aquatic habitats characterized by slow-moving water with a soft muddy bottom and dense aquatic vegetation. They also use adjacent terrestrial habitats.

The Canadian range of the Snapping Turtle extends from southeastern Saskatchewan to Nova Scotia. Although data on Canadian population trends are very limited, long-term studies have shown that some populations are declining and that local populations are highly vulnerable to increases in adult mortality. Certain characteristics of the species’ reproductive strategy (life history characterized by delayed maturity, extended longevity and low recruitment) make local populations very sensitive to increases in mortality associated with anthropogenic threats.

The main threats to the Canadian population of Snapping Turtles are conversion of aquatic or riparian habitats for agriculture and urban development purposes incompatible with the species’ needs, the road network, illegal harvesting, persecution, human-subsidized predators, and fishing bycatch. Other threats that have been identified include chemical contamination, water level management, dredging, and collisions with boats. It should be noted that each of these threats has a cumulative effect.

The management objective for the Snapping Turtle is to maintain and, if possible, increase the area of occupancy index of the Snapping Turtle in Canada (~ 858,000 km2) and to maintain and, if possible, increase Snapping Turtle abundance in Canada, by reducing the main threats to the species, particularly those affecting adult turtles.

The conservation measures recommended in order to achieve this objective are divided into six broad strategies: protect individuals and habitat through the use of legal and administrative tools; reduce mortality, injury and harvesting; conserve, manage and restore habitat; carry out communication activities and establish or maintain partnerships; conduct surveys and carry out monitoring of Snapping Turtle populations and habitats; and carry out research and acquire the knowledge necessary for management of the Snapping Turtle and its habitat.

1 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada species assessment information

Date of assessment: November 2008

Common name: Snapping Turtle

Scientific name: Chelydra serpentina

COSEWIC status: Special concern

Reason for designation: Although this species is widespread and still somewhat abundant, its life history (late maturity, great longevity, low recruitment, lack of density-dependent responses) and its dependence on long, warm summers to complete incubation successfully make it unusually susceptible to anthropogenic threats. When these threats cause even apparently minor increases in the mortality of adults, populations are likely to decline as long as these mortality increases persist. There are several such threats and their impacts are additive. Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge generally supports the declining trend and population figures in the COSEWIC report.

Canadian occurrence: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

COSEWIC status history: Designated Special Concern in November 2008.

2 Species status information

The Canadian range of the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) represents approximately 10% of its global range. In Canada, the species has been listed as Special Concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) since 2011. It has been listed as a special concern species under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 (S.O. 2007, c. 6) since 2009, as a species of special concern under the New Brunswick Species at Risk Act (S.N.B. 2012, c. 6) since 2011, and as a vulnerable species under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act (S.N.S. 1998, c. 11, s. 1) since 2013. The Snapping Turtle has not been legally designated as a species at risk in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec.

The Snapping Turtle has a global conservation status rank of G5 (secure) and a national status rank of N5 (secure) in Canada and the United States. The species has a status rank of S5 (secure) in Nova Scotia, S4 (apparently secure) in Quebec and New Brunswick, and S3 (vulnerable) in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario (see Appendix A of the present document; [NatureServe, 2017]).

In 2010, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ranked the Snapping Turtle as least concern (IUCN, 2015). In 2016, the United States added the species to Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).Footnote 1  In Canada, the Snapping Turtle is not governed by the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (S.C. 1992, c. 52).

3 Species information

3.1 Species description

The Snapping Turtle is one of the largest freshwater turtles in Canada (maximum carapace length = 49.4 cm; [Ernst and Lovich, 2009]). It has a brown, black or olive keeled carapaceFootnote 2  (the keels are more prominent on young turtles), with deeply serrated posterior marginal scutes.Footnote 3  The Snapping Turtle has a cross-shaped plastron,Footnote 4  which is much reduced compared with that of other Canadian freshwater turtles, leaving the limbs exposed. It has a very large head with a hooked upper jaw, a long neck and a long tail with elongate scales, giving it a saw-toothed appearance (Harding, 1997; Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Males can attain a carapace size of 49.4 cm, compared with a maximum of 36.6 cm for females (Gibbons and Lovich, 1990). In males, the linear distance from the cloacaFootnote 5 to the posterior tip of the plastron is more than 120% greater than the length of the posterior lobeFootnote 6 of the plastron, whereas in females, this ratio is generally smaller than 110% (Mosimann and Bider, 1960; Ernst and Lovich, 2009). In Ontario, males can reach an average mass of 18 kg and females an average mass of 9 kg (R. Brooks, unpublished data cited in COSEWIC, 2008). However, it appears that wild individuals of the species can reach a mass of 34 kg (Harding, 1997). For more descriptive details on the species, see the COSEWIC Status Report (2008).

3.2 Species population and distribution

The Snapping Turtle ranges across the United States east of the 105th meridian and southward to southern Texas. Approximately 10% of the species’ range is in Canada, where it encompasses southeastern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, western, central and southern Ontario, central and southern Quebec, southern New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia (Figure 1; [COSEWIC, 2008]).

Map 1, see long description
Figure 1. Distribution of the Snapping Turtle (adapted from COSEWIC, 2008). The species’ range is indicated by the shaded areas.

Most of the available data on Snapping Turtle numbers in Canada come from incidental observations or non-targeted surveys. In Ontario, long-term mark-recapture studies have also been conducted (in Algonquin Provincial Park [for example, Brooks et al., 1988; Brooks et al., 1991; Galbraith et al., 1988], Point Pelee National Park [for example, Browne, 2003; Browne and Hecnar, 2007], and Hamilton [unpublished data from S. de Solla; Galbraith et al., 1988]). In Saskatchewan, the Snapping Turtle occurs in the southeastern part of the province, although unconfirmed reports suggest that the species may also be present in southwestern Saskatchewan (COSEWIC, 2008). In Manitoba, it has been reported in most of the regions in the southern part of the province (Central Plains, Eastman, Interlake, Northern, Parkland, Pembina Valley, Westman, Winnipeg Capital Region), and according to unconfirmed reports, the species’ range may extend as far north as The Pas (Preston, 1982; COSEWIC, 2008). The Snapping Turtle is distributed throughout Ontario south of a line from approximately Wawa to Kirkland Lake, and there are reports of its presence in western Ontario, along the Ontario–Minnesota border (COSEWIC, 2008). In Quebec, the Snapping Turtle occurs in the watersheds of almost all the rivers located south of the 49th parallel, and its abundance decreases with increasing latitude (Y. Dubois, personal communication, 2014; AARQ, 2015). In New Brunswick, it is found in all counties of the province, except Restigouche in the north. The species is also present throughout mainland Nova Scotia (COSEWIC, 2008). While the occurrence of Snapping Turtles has been reported on Cape Breton Island, these specimens likely represent released captives (Cape Breton Highlands National Park, 2009).

Although the size of the Canadian Snapping Turtle population is unknown, these turtles are estimated to number in the thousands (COSEWIC, 2008). The Snapping Turtle remains relatively abundant in eastern Canada, but is less often encountered in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (COSEWIC, 2008). Little is known about the population trend in Canada. Long-term studies conducted in Ontario have nonetheless shown that certain populations are declining and that local populations are vulnerable to increases in adult mortality (see section 3.4 – Limiting Factors as well as other details concerning these local populations in the COSEWIC Status Report [2008]). Given this limiting factor, local population declines are likely to occur within the Canadian range wherever anthropogenic threats result in an increase in adult mortality.

The extent of occurrenceFootnote 7 of the Snapping Turtle in Canada has been estimated to be about 1,455,000 km2 and the index of area of occupancyFootnote 8 approximately 858,000 km2 (COSEWIC, 2008). The species’ extent of occurrence has declined and is still declining owing to a significant reduction in habitat quantity and quality (see the subsection entitled Conversion of aquatic or riparian habitats for agriculture and urban development purposes incompatible with the species’ needs, in section 4.2).

3.3 Needs of the Snapping Turtle

General habitat needs

Although Snapping Turtles occupy a wide variety of habitats, the preferred habitat for this species is characterized by slow-moving water with a soft mud bottom and dense aquatic vegetation. Established populations are most often found in ponds, marshes, swamps, peat bogs, shallow bays, river and lake edges, and slow-moving streams (Harding, 1997; Ernst and Lovich, 2009; Paterson et al., 2012). Although individual turtles may persist in developed areas (for example, golf course ponds, irrigation canals) and environments with heavily polluted water (for example, some port areas), it is unlikely that local populations will persist in such habitats, since environmental contamination is known to severely compromise reproductive success (Bishop et al., 1998; de Solla et al., 1998; COSEWIC, 2008; Rowe, 2008).


Snapping Turtles seek out overwintering sites in the aquatic environment in order to keep from freezing during the winter. These may include lotic,Footnote 9 lenticFootnote 10 and mudFootnote 11 environments (Brown and Brooks, 1994; Paterson et al.,2012). Within these habitats, the preferred overwintering sites appear to have the following characteristics: water that is shallow enough for the turtle to reach the surface to breathe, but deep enough that it will not freeze to the bottom; a location that is likely to freeze over later in the season and thaw earlier in the spring; mud deep enough for the turtle to bury itself; and additional submerged cover, such as a floating mat of vegetation, roots, stumps, branches or logs, a muskrat lodge or an overhanging bank (Meeks and Ultsch, 1990). Snapping Turtles tolerate anoxicFootnote 12 conditions (Reese et al., 2002); dissolved oxygen levels at their overwintering sites have been found to vary greatly (Paterson et al., 2012). The species appears to select overwintering sites characterized by lower water temperatures than the surrounding habitat, probably to reduce the metabolic costs of overwintering (Paterson et al., 2012). During overwintering, the turtles can lower their body temperature to 1 °C or 2 °C, but if the temperature drops further they will freeze to death (R. Brooks, personal communication, cited in Ernst and Lovich, 2009). In the Great Lakes region, Snapping Turtles generally overwinter from October to April (Harding, 1997; Brown and Brooks, 1993). They may overwinter in groups (Meeks and Ultsch, 1990), and other species of turtles may join them at the overwintering site (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Snapping Turtles appear to show some degree of fidelity to sites at which they had previously overwintered, with some adults traveling up to 3.9 km to return to their previous year’s site (Brown and Brooks, 1994).


Mating of Snapping Turtles may occur throughout the active season (Ernst and Lovich, 2009), but it more commonly occurs in the spring and fall (Harding, 1997). In Canada, females generally lay their eggs between late May and late June (Harding, 1997; Desroches and Rodrigue, 2004). Across the species’ global range, clutch size varies between 4 and 109 eggs, but a typical clutch contains 25 to 45 eggs (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). The eggs are generally laid on sand or gravel banks near the water, in locations where vegetation is absent or sparse. Although a wide range of other sites that are easy to dig into are also used, including beaver and muskrat lodges, roadsides, artificial dam and railway embankments, cracks in rocky banks, sawdust piles, disturbed soil, gardens, lawns, forest clearings and farm fields, nesting success at these sites is unknown (Obbard and Brooks, 1980; Congdon et al., 2008; Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Females exhibit strong nesting site fidelity, returning to the same site year after year (Loncke and Obbard, 1977; Obbard and Brooks, 1980).

In Snapping Turtles, sex is determined by incubation temperature. Research has shown that an incubation temperature of 20 °C produces only females, temperatures of between 23 °C and 24 °C, only males, and temperatures of between 29 °C and 31 °C, only females. Intermediate or unstable incubation temperatures appear to produce mixed sex ratios (Yntema, 1976; Dimond, 1983; Crews et al., 1989; Bobyn and Brooks, 1994, Freedberg et al., 2001; 2011). Eggs generally hatch 65 to 95 days after they are laid (Harding, 1997), that is, between late August and late October; eggs laid at more northerly latitudes take longer to hatch (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Hatchlings can overwinter in the nest but the rate of hatchling survival in populations in the northern part of the range is low (Obbard and Brooks, 1981b; Parren and Rice, 2004). Upon emerging from the nest, hatchlings usually move to water, after which they bury themselves under leaf debris or other material (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Little is known about the habitat preferences of juveniles, but they appear to favour shallower portions of aquatic habitats with more vegetation in comparison with adults (Congdon et al., 1992).


To regulate their body temperature, Snapping Turtles often bask by floating at the water’s surface or remaining stationary in shallow water (for example, head of bay). They sometimes bask on logs and rocks, beaver or muskrat lodges or on stream banks (Obbard and Brooks, 1979; Brown et al., 1990; Ernst and Lovich, 2009), generally near the surface of the water. Snapping Turtles bask less often than other turtle species. In a study carried out in Ontario, Brown et al. (1990) showed that in some cases the body temperature of Snapping Turtles (22.7 °C) was lower than the temperature considered optimal (28 to 30 °C), even though these turtles are able to increase their body temperature through thermoregulation. Other factors such as home range structure and foraging tactics could explain why the turtles do not take advantage of opportunities to maintain an optimum body temperature (Brown et al., 1990).

Snapping Turtles generally become dormant when the water temperature drops below 5 °C (Ernst and Lovich, 2009) and become active when the water temperature is about 7.5 °C (Obbard and Brooks, 1981a). However, they do not feed at temperatures below 15 °C (Obbard and Brooks, 1981a).


The Snapping Turtle is omnivorous and opportunistic. Its diet may include algae and vascular plants (fruits, leaves and stems; Ernst and Lovich, 2009; Pell, 1941), mollusks (bivalves, snails), arthropods (crayfish, insects), fish (adults, eggs), amphibians (salamanders, anurans), reptiles (small turtles, snakes), birds (particularly waterbirds and shorebirds) and small mammals (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Snapping Turtles usually consume larger amounts of plant material than animal matter (Lagler, 1940). They may actively forage for food, or they may lie in wait to ambush prey (Ernst and Lovich, 2009).  Snapping Turtles consume both live prey and carrion (Schneider, 1998).


Snapping Turtles are capable of swimming through deep water but prefer to remain on the periphery of water bodies (within 5 m of shore) at depths of less than 2 m (Brown, 1992). Although the Snapping Turtle is one of the most aquatic freshwater turtle species in Canada, it uses terrestrial habitats as movement corridors, particularly when local water conditions are unfavourable (Steen et al., 2010). Obbard and Brooks (1980) reported that some Snapping Turtles had travelled more than 500 m overland from one body of water to another. They may also use streams in early spring as a means of travelling between bodies of water (Brown and Brooks, 1993).

In Ontario, the Snapping Turtle’s home range size has been estimated to range from a few hectares (Obbard and Brooks, 1981a; Pettit et al.,1995) to a few dozen hectares (Paterson et al.,2012). Depending on the populations concerned, males and females may have a similar home range (for example, 3.21 ha for males and 3.79 ha for females; Obbard and Brooks, 1981a) or females may have a larger home range (for example, 2.2 to 3.4 ha on average for males and 8.6 to 9.7 ha for females [Pettit et al., 1995]; ± 17.5 ha for males and ± 30 ha for females; [Paterson et al., 2012]). It appears, moreover, that females travel greater distances than males, particularly during the nesting season. Pettit et al. (1995) reported that females travelled up to 2.02 km between their residence and a nesting area, whereas Obbard and Brooks (1980) found that the maximum round trip distance travelled between home range and nesting site was 16 km. In addition, Brown and Brooks (1994) showed that some individuals travelled up to 4 km (1 km on average) away from their summer home range to return to an overwintering site. In a study conducted in Algonquin Provincial Park, Paterson et al. (2012) showed that home range size was approximately the same for males and females in the pre-nesting season and the nesting season (about a dozen hectares), but that females had a larger home range size in the post-nesting season (possibly due to increased foraging activity).

3.4 Limiting factors

The maintenance of Snapping Turtle populations depends on high adult survival rates to counterbalance low recruitment rates, which are mainly due to the species’ reproductive strategy and climatic constraints.

Reproductive strategy

Most turtles, including the Snapping Turtle, have certain common life-history traits that can limit their ability to adapt to high levels of disturbance and that help explain their susceptibility to population declines (Congdon et al., 1994; Gibbons et al., 2000; Turtle Conservation Fund, 2002).

Snapping Turtles have a relatively short time to reproduce owing to their delayed sexual maturity. In Ontario, it is estimated that females nest for the first time between 17 and 19 years of age (Galbraith et al., 1989; Galbraith, 1994). Sexual maturity is reached at an earlier age in more southerly populations, such as those in Florida (4 to 8 years; [Aresco et al., 2006]), Iowa (4 to 7 years; [Christiansen and Burken, 1979]) and Michigan (12 years; [Congdon et al., 1987]). In Ontario, it is estimated that males reach sexual maturity between 15 and 20 years of age (R. Brooks, unpublished data cited in COSEWIC, 2008). The lifespan of Snapping Turtles in the wild has been estimated to be nearly 40 years (Galbraith and Brooks, 1989; Harding, 1997), and unpublished data and anecdotal reports suggest that Snapping Turtles can often reach ages greater than 50 years (COSEWIC, 2008). Long-term studies indicate that high survival rates of adults (particularly females) are critical to the maintenance of turtle populations. An increase of just 2% or 3% in the adult mortality rate can result in a severe decline in the turtle population (Congdon et al., 1993; 1994; Cunnington and Brooks, 1996). Life-history models indicate that a slight increase (+ 0.1%) in the annual mortality rate of turtles over 15 years of age (due to road mortality or harvesting, for example) would halve the number of adults in the local population in less than 20 years (Congdon et al., 1994). Adult survivorship is therefore of critical importance for the persistence of local Snapping Turtle populations. Episodes of predation on adults have been reported and can have a long-term impact on local populations. For example, Brooks et al. (1991) reported that 31 adult Snapping Turtles were killed during by river otters while overwintering (Lontra canadensis) over a three-year period, reducing the minimum number of adult residents in the lake under study from 47 to 16.

Local Snapping Turtle populations also experience a high rate of predation on eggs. Nest predation rates ranging from 59% to 94% have been reported (Hammer, 1969; Petokas and Alexander, 1980; Congdon et al., 1987, cited by Wirsing et al., 2012). This naturally high rate of predation is exacerbated by the activity of human-subsidized predatorsFootnote 13 (see the threat Human-subsidized predators in section 4). Although the hatchling survival rate is low, survivorship increases as the turtles mature (and increase in size). The survival rate is only 6.4% to 23.0% for hatchlings, but reaches 67.8% to 75.4% for juveniles, and 93.0% to 96.6% for mature individuals (Heppel, 1998).

Climatic constraints

Local Snapping Turtle populations are also dependent on environmental conditions which influence the duration of overwintering and the internal development of eggs and external incubation of eggs without parental care. Canadian Snapping Turtle populations are at the northern limit of the species’ range (Seburn and Seburn, 2000; Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Since a smaller number of heat unitsFootnote 14 are available in more northerly regions, the likelihood of completion of egg incubation and embryo development decreases with increasing latitude (Yntema, 1976; Holt, 2000; Ewert, 2008). Furthermore, recruitment can vary from one year to the next depending on weather conditions, particularly during the summer (R. Brooks, personal communication, cited in COSEWIC, 2008).

In Snapping Turtles, sex determination is temperature-dependent at certain stages of embryo development (Janzen, 1992; Rhen and Lang, 1998; see the subsection entitled Nesting in section 3.3 – Needs of the Snapping Turtle). Consequently, weather conditions could have an impact on the proportion of males and females recruited into the population.

3.5 Species cultural significance

Archeological data indicate that the Snapping Turtle was already present in several areas of its current range (including Wendake South, in southern Ontario) several hundred years ago, well before European colonization (Bureau du Nionwentsïo, 2016).

Turtles feature prominently in the beliefs and ceremonies of many First Nations peoples. For some First Nations communities, the turtle is a teacher, possessing a great wealth of knowledge. It plays a vital role in creating the world by allowing the Earth to be created on its back. For this reason, many First Nations peoples call North America “Turtle Island” (which supports the Earth and the First Nations communities), and view the Turtle’s back as a sort of calendar, with its pattern of thirteen large scutes standing for the thirteen moons of each year (Bell et al., 2010).

Several First Nations peoples have used, and continue to use, turtles, including the Snapping Turtle, for food, crafts and ceremonial and other purposes. For example, rattles made from turtle shells may be used as percussion instruments and symbols in traditional ceremonies and dances, that often depict the Creation story or the ebb and flow of life, or that are performed for healing or celebration purposes (Bell et al., 2004; Bureau du Nionwentsïo, 2016). Turtles also appear in the legends of some First Nations, such as the Anishinaabe (“How the Turtle Got its Shell”) and the Hauenosaunee (“Turtle Races with Beaver”) (Bell et al., 2010).

4 Threats

The threats to the Snapping Turtle may vary regionally and locally throughout its range in Canada. The information presented in Table 1 is an overall assessment of the threats to the species in Canada.

4.1 Threat assessment

Threats are presented in Table 1 in overall decreasing order of concern within each main threat category.

Table 1. Threat assessment table
Threat category Threat Level of concerna Extent Occurrence Frequency Severityb Causal certaintyc
Habitat loss and degradation Conversion of aquatic or riparian habitats for agriculture and urban development purposes incompatible with the species’ needs High Widespread Current Continuous High High
Habitat loss and degradation Water level management Low Localized Current Recurrent Unknown Low
Habitat loss and degradation Dredging Low Localized Current Recurrent Unknown Low
Accidental mortality Road network High Widespread Current Seasonal High High
Accidental mortality Fishing bycatch Medium Widespread Current Seasonal Moderate/Low High
Accidental mortality Collisions with boats Low Localized Current Seasonal Low Low
Biological resource use Illegal harvesting Medium Widespread Current Seasonal High Medium
Pollution Chemical contamination Medium/Low Localized Current Continuous Moderate/Low Medium
Disturbance or harm Persecution Medium Widespread Current Recurrent Unknown Medium
Exotic, invasive or introduced species Invasive exotic species Medium/Low Localized Current/ Anticipated Continuous Moderate/Low Medium
Changes in ecological dynamics or natural processes Human-subsidized predators Medium Widespread Current Seasonal Moderate Medium

a Level of concern – signifies that managing the threat is of (high, medium or low) concern for the conservation of the species, consistent with the management objectives. This criterion considers the assessment of all the information in the table.
b Severity – reflects the population-level effect (High: very large population-level effect, Moderate, Low, Unknown).
c Causal certainty – reflects the degree of evidence that is known for the threat (High: available evidence strongly links the threat to stresses on population viability; Medium: there is a correlation between the threat and population viability, for example, expert opinion; Low: the threat is assumed or plausible).

4.2 Description of threats

This section describes the major threats outlined in Table 1, emphasizes key elements, and provides additional information. Although threats are listed individually, an important concern is the long-term cumulative effect of a variety of threats to local Snapping Turtle populations. It should be noted that some of these threats apply only during the active season since they lead to direct mortality, injury or capture of individuals. Moreover, exposure to threats increases during periods of increased Snapping Turtle movements (for example, nesting); some females move several kilometres between their overwintering and nesting sites in the spring. Among the mechanisms by which threats can impact Snapping Turtle populations, isolation through habitat loss is of special concern, as it can lead to fragmentation of local populations by interfering with dynamics and limiting the possibility of rescue effect.Footnote 15 The threats to the Snapping Turtle are presented below in order of decreasing level of concern.

Conversion of aquatic or riparian habitats for agriculture and urban development purposes incompatible with the species’ needs

The Snapping Turtle is confined to the more southern parts of Canada, which are the most heavily populated areas and subject to the most intensive agricultural operations. Snapping Turtle habitat has declined appreciably in both quantity and quality, with losses primarily due to conversion of wetlands, aquatic habitats (for example, streams, water bodies, ponds) and associated riparian terrestrial habitats for agriculture and urban development (COSEWIC, 2008). Conversion can make all or parts of habitats partially or entirely unusable for certain stages of the species’ life cycle (for example, riprap or concrete walls installed along shorelines can reduce nest site availability and act as a barrier to movement) or destroy them outright (for example, filling of a wetland for agriculture or urban development reduces the area of habitat available for all life stages). It should be noted that the reduction in availability of suitable nesting sites caused by degradation and conversion of riparian habitat is especially problematic given the turtles’ nest site fidelity (see the subsection entitled Reproduction in section 3.3 – Needs of the Snapping Turtle).

In Canada, more than 80% of aquatic habitats located near large urban centres have been converted to agriculture or urban development. Agriculture has claimed 71% of wetlands in southern Ontario and 70% of wetlands in the Prairies (Natural Resources Canada, 2004). Since the Snapping Turtle occupies the most populated regions of the country, it has suffered considerable habitat loss and continues to do so. A study by Freedberg et al. (2011) indicates that conversion of aquatic habitats for agriculture can also indirectly affect the Snapping Turtle population by altering the sex ratio. The study showed that females frequently chose to nest in agricultural fields rather than in natural sand prairie nesting habitat. These field sites, albeit open and sparsely vegetated at the start of the nesting season, soon become covered by rapidly growing crop plants (for example, corn, soybean, sunflower) which are present during most of the embryo development period. The resulting temperature conditions favour male-biased sex ratios (up to 100% male offspring). Such a strong bias in favour of males could lead to a population decline.

Furthermore, at the local scale, an increase in human density in the species’ area of occupancy may boost the numbers of human-subsidized predators (see subsection entitled Human-subsidized predators), increase the risk of persecution (see subsection entitled Persecution) and of illegal harvesting (see subsection Illegal harvesting) and lead to an expansion of the road network (see subsection entitled Road network).

Road network

Road mortality is a significant factor contributing to annual mortality in most of the turtle species found in North America, especially on roads that run through or are located adjacent to wetlands (Beaudry et al., 2008; Litvaitis and Tash, 2008). In some locations, dozens of Snapping Turtles are killed on roads every year (for example, Ashley and Robinson, 1996; Haxton, 2000; Farmer, 2012; S.D. Gillingwater, personal communication, 2016). Modelling studies show that local freshwater turtle populations experience annual traffic mortality rates that may exceed 5% in areas with high road densities (Gibbs and Shriver, 2002), which reduces the likelihood of the long-term persistence of local populations in areas with high road densities (see section 3.4 – Limiting factors; and subsection entitled Persecution which deals with the issue of turtles being deliberately driven over). Crowley (2006) showed that the extirpation of several reptile populations in Ontario was associated with regions of high road density. Snapping Turtles are particularly vulnerable to road mortality during nesting, because females in search of nesting sites are more likely to cross roads and because soft gravel road shoulders make attractive nesting sites (Haxton, 2000; Aresco, 2005). Given the limiting factors associated with the species’ reproductive strategy (see section 3.4 – Limiting factors), the negative impact of an increase in the mortality of mature females that nest on road shoulders greatly exceeds the potential increase in the recruitment rate associated with the use of such sites. In areas with higher road densities, turtle population sex ratios could become increasingly skewed towards males as a result of increased mortality of females (Aresco, 2005). If a female does manage to complete a roadside nest, the hatchlings are often killed as they leave the nest or the eggs fail to hatch due to compaction of the nest chamber, desiccation or increased access to mammalian predators (COSEWIC, 2008). Roadside nests may also be destroyed or damaged during routine road maintenance such as grading (R. Brooks, unpublished data cited in COSEWIC, 2008). Roadside nest sites can therefore be considered ecological traps. Lastly, major roads with heavy traffic (for example, highways) or roads built in such a way as to make it impossible for turtles to cross can be considered barriers to their movement (NatureServe, 2017).

Measures to reduce the threat posed by the road network can be implemented (for example, construction of ecopassages, installation of fencing) but they must be implemented in such a way that they do not exacerbate the problem (for example, partial fencing) and they must be monitored over time (for example, Markle et al., 2017).

Illegal harvesting

Hunting of Snapping Turtles is prohibited in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and in Ontario.Footnote 16

Trade in turtles for food, medicine, recreational (such as pets) and decorative (such as trinkets) purposes affects the Snapping Turtle at all life stages. Whereas adults are mainly exploited for food, juveniles and hatchlings are exploited as pets (COSEWIC, 2008; Mali et al., 2014). Harvesting of Snapping Turtles in the natural environment and captive rearing of these turtles on farms for export to East Asia  increased substantially in the early 2000s in the United States, where the number of turtles reported as being exported annually (including both wild and captive-reared turtles) rose from 10,000 in 1999 to more than 300,000 in recent years (van Dijk, 2012). Between 2002 and 2012, at least 126 million turtles (including more than 4 million turtles in the genus Chelydra) were exported from the United States (Mali et al., 2014). In 2014 alone, more than 1.3 million Snapping Turtles were exported from the United States, including more than 200,000 wild caught individuals (Colteaux and Johnson, 2017). Very little information exists on exports of turtles from Canada (COSEWIC, 2008; WWF, 2015). Over the past few decades, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has charged a number of people with the possession and sale of dozens of Snapping Turtles (OMSTARRT, 2016). In addition, illegal trade appears to be on the rise in Canada, particularly in large cosmopolitan centres (for example, Toronto and Montreal; COSEWIC, 2008).

Considering the reproductive strategy of the Snapping Turtle (that is, delayed sexual maturity, high embryo mortality, extended adult longevity; see section 3.4 – Limiting factors), harvesting of adults and older juveniles is especially harmful for wild populations. Van Dijk (2012) reported that in some areas at the northern limit of the Snapping Turtle’s range, harvesting of these turtles has resulted in significant declines in local populations. The Ontario Multi-Species Turtles at Risk Recovery Team has estimated the maximum sustainable yield of Snapping Turtles to be less than 1% of the population per year (OMSTARRT, 2016), which represents a harvest of less than one turtle every two years for a population of 50 individuals.


The Snapping Turtle has a largely undeserved but widespread reputation as an aggressive animal that preys on waterfowl and fish species (these animals make up only a small proportion of its diet; see subsection entitled Foraging in section 3.3 - Needs of the Snapping Turtle) that are sought after by hunters and fishermen. For this reason and because of their large size and defensive behaviour when on land, they are often the target of illegal acts of abuse. They have been found deliberately starved to death, nailed to trees, shot, beaten or dismembered, and deliberately driven over by automobiles (R. Bolton, R. Brooks and S.D. Gillingwater, pers. comm. cited in COSEWIC, 2008). In a study conducted on the periphery of a national wildlife area, Ashley et al. (2007) showed that 1.8% of drivers deliberately drive over turtles. Depending on the volume of vehicle traffic and the presence of roads through turtle habitat, this threat may have a very important effect at the scale of a local population, especially since mature females (whose survival is necessary to maintain local populations - see section 3.4 - Limiting Factors) use roadside areas for nesting (see subsection entitled Road network).

Little is currently known about the effects of persecution on local Snapping Turtle populations. The available information is more qualitative in nature, as it is based primarily on expert opinions (see COSEWIC, 2008).

Human-subsidized predators

Human activities such as agriculture, housing development and road development boost the numbers of certain predators in Snapping Turtle habitat (COSEWIC, 2008; Riley and Litzgus, 2014). In several regions of southern Canada, predation of Snapping Turtle eggs is exacerbated by high populations of Racoons [Procyon lotor], Striped Skunks ([Mephitis mephitis], Red Foxes [Vulpes vulpes], Opossums [Didelphis virginiana] and Coyotes [Canis latrans] (COSEWIC, 2008; Riley and Litzgus, 2014). Unusually high rates of nest predation have been well documented in several Ontario parks, such as Point Pelee National Park, where 83.8% of Snapping Turtle nests (Wirsing et al., 2012) and 100% of roadside nests of Snapping Turtles and Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta) were depredated (Browne, 2003). At this site, the predation rate in anthropogenically disturbed areas (95%) was higher than in undisturbed areas (60%) (Wirsing et al., 2012). These elevated rates of egg predation are believed to have caused a decline in recruitment and a consequent shift in population structure (Browne and Hecnar, 2007). Unnaturally high densities of certain mammals are the primary cause of nest failure in the southern part of the species’ range in Canada and, given that the human population in southern Canada is stable or growing, it is unlikely that predator densities will decrease in the future (COSEWIC, 2008). Egg predation may occur predominantly within the first few days after nest establishment in some cases (e.g., Wirsing et al., 2012), as well as throughout the incubation period (e.g., Riley and Litzgus, 2014). In some cases, this threat can be mitigated by using predator exclusion devices (Riley and Litzgus, 2013) or by reducing the abundance of predator populations (Christiansen and Gallaway, 1984; Spencer, 2002).

In addition, the rate of egg predation could be higher for Snapping Turtles than for other turtle species, particularly since their nests are likely more visible (greater soil disturbance around their nests), and contain a large number of eggs (Wirsing et al.,2012).

Fishing bycatch

Recreational fishing is a source of mortality for Snapping Turtles, which can accidentally ingest fishing hooks after consuming dead fish with embedded hooks in them or can be hooked directly by anglers (COSEWIC, 2008). In a study conducted in the southeastern United States, Steen et al. (2014) reported that 3.6% of Snapping Turtles caught were found to have ingested a fishing hook. It is not known whether the use of circle hooks could reduce the hook ingestion rate or the severity of hooking injuries in Snapping Turtles, as is the case for sea turtle species (Serafy et al., 2012). Cases of Snapping Turtle mortality and injury (e.g., intestinal perforations caused by the ingestion of fishing line and jigs) as well as poisoning (e.g., ingestion of lead sinkers) have also been reported (Borkowski, 1997; Scheuhammer et al., 2003).

Commercial fishing is also a significant source of mortality for freshwater turtles. The threat posed by fixed gear (e.g., fyke nets/hoop nets), in particular, is well documented (Michaletz and Sullivan, 2002; Barko et al., 2004; Carrière, 2007). Since this type of gear is usually fully submerged, captured individuals are at risk of drowning if the nets are not checked often enough. Turtles that survive submergence may suffer impairments that can potentially lead to post-release mortality (Stoot et al., 2013). The Snapping Turtle is one of the species for which the threat posed by fixed gear has been documented (e.g., Laroque et al., 2012a) and it has been shown that bycatch mortality can have significant population-level impacts (Midwood et al.,2015). Bycatch mitigation can be achieved through the use of suitably modified gear (e.g., Laroque et al.,2012b, c; Cairns et al.,2013; Midwood et al.,2015; Cairns et al., 2017) and through certain handling and recovery methods for captured turtles (e.g., LeDain et al.,2013).

Chemical contamination

Snapping Turtles can accumulate high concentrations of chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals (e.g., mercuryFootnote 17), pesticides and organochlorine contaminants, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)Footnote 18 (Bonin et al., 1995; de Solla et al., 2008; Landler et al., 2017). One of the highest PCB concentrations ever measured in a free-ranging animal species was found in Snapping Turtles, near Cornwall, Ontario (de Solla et al., 2008). Furthermore, Snapping Turtle eggs can absorb the kinds of pesticides that are routinely used in agriculture, such as atrazine and metolachlor (de Solla and Martin, 2011), and the concentrations of organochlorine contaminants measured in some eggs exceed the maximum allowable levels in fish intended for human consumption as well as the limits set out in the Canadian environmental quality guidelines (on the shores of Lake Erie; de Solla et al., 1998). More recently, it was demonstrated that metam sodium (a pesticide, herbicide and fungicide) used as a non-selective soil fumigant,Footnote 19 notably for potato production, is highly toxic to Snapping Turtle eggs. Eggs exposed to metam sodium had 100% mortality, even when this substance was applied at 0.1 times the recommended application rate (de Solla et al., 2014).

Elevated contaminant concentrations cause decreased hatching success and increased deformity rates in Snapping Turtles (Bishop et al., 1991; 1998; de Solla et al., 2008; Eisenreich et al., 2009), which is believed to  have a long-term impact on the reproductive success of local populations (Rowe, 2008). However, a study by Gibbs et al. (2017) conducted across a PCB concentration gradient in a 100-km stretch of the Hudson River (New York State) failed to identify a relationship between PCB concentration and several population (e.g., age or sex ratio, relative abundance) or individual (e.g., incidence of deformities, parasite load, movements) parameters. In addition, Landler et al. (2017) showed that mercury bioaccumulation in hatchling Snapping Turtles interfered with their ability to align themselves with the magnetic field, indicating that mercury could compromise their performance in spatial tasks.

The threat posed by chemical contaminants is prevalent in industrialized regions (e.g., along the St. Lawrence River) and in areas of intensive agriculture.

Water level management

Artificially lowering water levels in lakes and impoundments through the operation of water control structures (e.g., hydroelectric dams) may limit the availability of overwintering sites to turtles and may strand turtles in freezing temperatures and result in mortalities, depending on when such operations take place (COSEWIC, 2008). Snapping Turtles usually die when exposed to freezing temperatures during the overwintering period (see subsection entitled Overwintering in section 3.3 - Needs of the Snapping Turtle). Management of water levels in beaver ponds also poses a problem for the species. Y. Dubois (pers. comm. 2014) reported that in several locations in Quebec, beaver dams have been partly or completely destroyed in order to lower water levels and reduce the size of flooded areas. There is a significant risk of Snapping Turtles becoming exposed to freezing temperatures if this operation is carried out during the overwintering period. A rapid increase in or drop in water levels is recognized as a threat to a number of freshwater turtle species including the Snapping Turtle, because of the potential for flooding turtle nests or the potential reduction in suitable nesting sites (COSEWIC, 2002; Compton, 1999).

Wetland restoration measures involving the installation of water-level control structures are generally beneficial, provided the species’ needs are taken into consideration during implementation and subsequent management.


Dredging of ponds, lakes, ditches, marina basins and stormwater management facilities removes sediments and structures that Snapping Turtles use as shelter, and can kill turtles that are in the sediment at the time of dredging (Aresco and Gunzburger, 2004; COSEWIC, 2008). During one dredging operation in Ontario, at least one case of mortality involving a number of Snapping Turtles was observed (S.D. Gillingwater, pers. comm., 2016). The severity of this threat in Canada is unknown, but dredging could have a significant impact on local populations and lead to extirpation in some cases (Aresco and Gunzburger, 2004).

Collisions with boats

During a two-year study in southern Ontario, nine Snapping Turtles were found dead, apparently killed by propeller strikes (Gillingwater, 2001). In a study on other freshwater turtle species injured by boats in Ontario, Bennett and Litzgus (2014) noted a Snapping Turtle with scars caused by a boat propeller. Turtles floating at or near the surface of the water are at risk of being struck and killed by boat propellers (Galois and Ouellet, 2007). Nonetheless, motor powered vessels are banned on many of the water bodies occupied by this species, which helps to lower the level of concern.

Invasive exotic species

Some invasive exotic species pose a threat to the Snapping Turtle. For example, in some areas of its breeding range, a non-native plant species, Common Reed (Phragmites australis australis), is invading wetlands, lakes and rivers, forming a monoculture that replaces the natural vegetation, altering water conditions (Wilcox et al., 2003; Hudon et al., 2005) and reducing the quality of movement, foraging, thermoregulation and overwintering habitat for turtles (Weisrock and Janzen, 1999; S.D. Gillingwater, comm. pers., 2016). Some sites could be altered by invasive exotic plants such as Common Reed, to such an extent that they no longer provide suitable habitat for egg laying or egg incubation (Bolton and Brooks, 2010). In the 1970s, Phragmites australis was locally present in southwestern Nova Scotia, the St. Lawrence valley and southwestern Ontario, but since the 1990s, it has spread very quickly both locally, and at the landscape level in southeastern Canada (Catling and Mitrow, 2011). By 2030, this species is expected to spread throughout southern Canada, from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador (Catling and Mitrow, 2011), and thus will overlap with the Snapping Turtle’s current range.

Potential threats

Activities likely to reduce water quality (e.g., wastewater discharges) could also present a threat to the species, particularly during the overwintering period (A. Boutin, pers. comm., 2015).

5 Management objective

The management objective is to maintain and, if possible, increase the index of area of occupancy of the Snapping Turtle in Canada (~ 858,000 km2) and to maintain and, if possible, increase Snapping Turtle abundance in Canada, by reducing the main threats to the species, particularly those affecting adult Snapping Turtles.

COSEWIC (2008) indicated that Snapping Turtle habitat is diminishing in both quantity and quality in Canada, specifying that declines have been observed in the index of area of occupancy as well as in the number of sites where the species occurs. Furthermore, little is known about population abundance or trends with respect to local populations in Canada. Furthermore, Snapping Turtles are affected by significant limiting factors (reproductive strategy and climatic constraints within its Canadian range), and the populations may therefore be very vulnerable to threats, particularly those that could lead to increased adult mortality (see section 3.4 – Limiting factors). This long-lived species has specific ecological requirements, complex life cycle needs, and a limited ability to compensate for the loss of individuals through reproduction or through recruitment from adjacent local populations. As a result, to achieve this objective, it will be important to implement conservation strategies and general approaches on several fronts over a long period of time and sometimes on a large scale. It will be necessary to obtain baseline abundance data and trend information to determine whether the objective has been met and to provide further guidance for conservation measures. In addition, strategies to reduce and mitigate threats to individual turtles and habitat are required in order to maintain the Snapping Turtle population in Canada. If we do not address the threats to this species, local populations will likely be unable to maintain their current size. Communication activities should be implemented and research activities undertaken to fill knowledge gaps, enhance understanding of Snapping Turtle biology and ecology and better document the threats to the species in Canada.

6 Broad strategies and conservation measures

6.1 Actions already completed or currently underway

At the national level, the Canadian Herpetological Society is the main non-profit organization devoted to the conservation of amphibians and reptiles, including turtles, through scientific investigations, public education programs and community projects, compilation and analysis of historical data, and habitat conservation and restoration projects.

Since the Snapping Turtle lives in association with other freshwater turtle species at risk in Eastern Canada (Spotted Turtle [Clemmys guttata], Eastern Musk Turtle [Sternotherus odoratus], Blanding’s Turtle [Emydoidea blandingii], Spiny Softshell [Apalone spinifera], Wood Turtle [Glyptemys insculpta] and Northern Map Turtle [Graptemys geographica]), it has indirectly benefited from the many conservation measures implemented for these species (see the recovery planning documents for those species on the SARA Registry.

Environment and Climate Change Canada has been funding projects related to Snapping Turtle conservation under the Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk program (AFSAR) and the Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP) since 2001, and under the Interdepartmental Recovery Fund (IRF) since 2004. Projects have included activities such as undertaking surveys for the species; identifying important habitats for local populations, studying the severity of and/or mitigating threats such as road mortality; encouraging public reporting of sightings; and educating landowners and the general public on species identification, threats, and stewardship options.

A number of key stakeholders have implemented knowledge acquisition, habitat restoration, management, communication, and threat reduction and mitigation measures aimed at the Snapping Turtle. Examples are provided below.

Concrete examples of conservation measures implemented for the Snapping Turtle include:

6.2 Broad strategies

The conservation measures recommended to achieve the management objective are divided into six broad strategies:

  1. conserve the Canadian Snapping Turtle population and its habitat through the use of legal and administrative tools
  2. reduce mortality, injury and harvesting of Snapping Turtles
  3. conserve, manage and restore Snapping Turtle habitat throughout the species’ Canadian range
  4. carry out communication activities and develop or maintain partnerships in order to implement conservation measures for the Snapping Turtle in a collaborative manner;
  5. carry out surveys and monitoring of Snapping Turtle populations and habitats
  6. conduct research and acquire knowledge necessary for management of the Snapping Turtle and its habitat (including threats)

6.3 Conservation measures

Conservation measures are recommended (Table 2) for each of the broad strategies presented in section 6.2. The threats or concerns listed in the third column are numbered as follows for conciseness:

  1. conversion of aquatic or riparian habitats for agriculture and urban development purposes incompatible with the species’ needs
  2. water level management
  3. dredging
  4. road network
  5. fishing bycatch
  6. collisions with boats
  7. illegal harvesting
  8. chemical contamination
  9. persecution
  10. human-subsidized predators
  11. knowledge gaps
Table 2. Conservation measures and implementation schedule
Broad strategy Conservation measures Priorityd Threats or concerns addressed Timeline
Broad strategy 1: Conserve the Canadian Snapping Turtle population and its habitat through the use of legal and administrative tools Continue to promote compliance with federal and provincial laws pertaining to the Snapping Turtle and its habitat. High 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 2020 to 2025
Broad strategy 1: Conserve the Canadian Snapping Turtle population and its habitat through the use of legal and administrative tools Evaluate and, if necessary, improve federal and provincial acts pertaining to the Snapping Turtle and its habitat, for example:
  • support the inclusion of the Snapping Turtle on CITES Appendix II so that the species is subject to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA)
  • ensure that the needs of the Snapping Turtle are taken into consideration in road design and improvement projects
High 4,7 2020 to 2023
Broad strategy 1: Conserve the Canadian Snapping Turtle population and its habitat through the use of legal and administrative tools Promote the integration of approved best management practices into the policies and practices of responsible agencies, jurisdictions and industry. High 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 2020 to 2025
Broad strategy 2: Reduce mortality, injury and harvesting of Snapping Turtles Continue to develop mitigation techniques (for example, best management practices) and encourage the implementation of such techniques by various target audiences (for example, general public, landowners, land managers, industry) in order to reduce mortality, injury and harvesting. Examples of priority mitigation measures:
  • identify sites with high road mortality rates and develop and implement approaches for reducing mortality (for example, discourage the construction of new roads in Snapping Turtle habitat, develop ecopassages, reduce speed limits near critical areas)
  • implement and evaluate mitigation techniques in order to reduce fishing bycatch
  • implement and evaluate techniques aimed at controlling predator populations or limiting access to nesting habitat through direct or indirect measures (for example, waste removal, predator habitat management, fencing)
  • reduce the use of pesticides that may adversely affect the maintenance of Snapping Turtle populations (for example, metam sodium)
High 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 3: Conserve, manage and restore Snapping Turtle habitat throughout the species’ Canadian range Preserve suitable habitats that are large enough to meet the habitat needs of local populations, through stewardship, land acquisition, management and other tools. High 1, 2, 4 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 3: Conserve, manage and restore Snapping Turtle habitat throughout the species’ Canadian range Prevent or minimize habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation (for example, filling of wetlands, shoreline development) by encouraging stewardship activities and promoting best management practices for habitat conservation. High 1, 2, 3, 8 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 3: Conserve, manage and restore Snapping Turtle habitat throughout the species’ Canadian range Evaluate needs and, if necessary, restore habitat using appropriate techniques in areas where habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation pose a threat to local Snapping Turtle populations. Medium 1, 8 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 4: Carry out communication activities and develop or maintain partnerships in order to implement conservation measures for the Snapping Turtle in a collaborative manner Develop and implement approaches and strategies to promote more positive attitudes towards the species and the adoption of effective behaviours leading to a reduction in anthropogenic threats to the species. High 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 2020 to 2025
Broad strategy 4: Carry out communication activities and develop or maintain partnerships in order to implement conservation measures for the Snapping Turtle in a collaborative manner Engage Indigenous people in the implementation of conservation measures for the benefit of the Snapping Turtle. Medium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 4: Carry out communication activities and develop or maintain partnerships in order to implement conservation measures for the Snapping Turtle in a collaborative manner Improve and maintain collaboration among stakeholders (for example, develop and maintain partnerships with stakeholders whose activities impinge on the Snapping Turtle, other turtle species at risk and other environmental components relevant to the Snapping Turtle). Medium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 4: Carry out communication activities and develop or maintain partnerships in order to implement conservation measures for the Snapping Turtle in a collaborative manner Encourage the transfer and archiving of information and tools, including traditional ecological knowledge. Medium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 5: Carry out surveys and monitoring of Snapping Turtle populations and habitats Develop and implement a population monitoring program using a subset representative of local populations, along with a program to monitor habitat trends. High 11 2020 to 2025
Broad strategy 5: Carry out surveys and monitoring of Snapping Turtle populations and habitats Encourage the submission of records of Snapping Turtle sightings to provincial conservation data centres or to provincial herpetological atlases. Medium 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 5: Carry out surveys and monitoring of Snapping Turtle populations and habitats Whenever possible, collaborate on and participate in existing survey and monitoring programs targeted to other species of aquatic habitats (for example, turtle species at risk) in order to complement information on distribution and obtain baseline reference data. Medium 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 6: Conduct research and acquire knowledge necessary for management of the Snapping Turtle and its habitat (including threats) Increase knowledge of the threats to the Snapping Turtle and its habitat in order to understand the full significance of the impacts and to document the associated severity, frequency, extent and causal certainty. For example:
  • determine the characteristics of areas where high levels of mortality from roadkill have been recorded
  • continue to document turtle bycatch
  • document the illegal harvesting of Snapping Turtles and estimate the impact on the maintenance of populations across Canada
  • determine the effect of human-subsidized predation on population persistence
  • determine the rate of mortality and habitat destruction caused by dredging and rapid lowering of water levels
High 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 6: Conduct research and acquire knowledge necessary for management of the Snapping Turtle and its habitat (including threats) Increase knowledge of the cumulative effect of threats to the Snapping Turtle and its habitat. Medium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 2020 to 2030
Broad strategy 6: Conduct research and acquire knowledge necessary for management of the Snapping Turtle and its habitat (including threats) Increase knowledge of the needs related to the species’ habitat and demography (for example, determine what constitutes a viable population size). Medium 11 2020 to 2030

d Priority – reflects the degree to which the measure contributes directly to the conservation of the species or is an essential precursor to a measure that contributes to the conservation of the species. High priority measures are considered those most likely to have an immediate and/or direct influence on attaining the management objective for the species. Medium priority measures may have a less immediate or less direct influence on reaching the management objective, but are still important for the management of the population. Low priority conservation measures will likely have an indirect or gradual influence on reaching the management objective, but are considered important contributions to the knowledge base and/or public involvement and acceptance of the species.

7 Measuring progress

Every five years, progress toward achieving the management objective, and hence the success of the management plan, will be measured against the following performance indicators:

8 References

AARQ. 2015. Atlas des amphibiens et des reptiles du Québec : banque de données active depuis 1988 alimentée par des bénévoles et des professionnels de la faune [accessed October 2015].

Aresco, M.J. and M.S. Gunzburger. 2004. Effects of large-scale sediment removal on herpetofauna in Florida wetlands. Journal of Herpetology 38(2): 275 to 279.

Aresco, M.J. 2005. The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation 123(1): 37 to 44.

Aresco, M.J., M.A. Ewert, M.S. Gunzburger, G.L. Heinrich and P.A. Meylan. 2006. Chelydra serpentina – Snapping turtle. Chelonian Research Monographs 3:44 to 57.

Ashley, E.P. and J.T. Robinson. 1996. Road Mortality of Amphibians, Reptiles and Other Wildlife on the Long Point Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110(3):403 to 412.

Ashley, E.P., A. Kosloski and S.A. Petrie. 2007. Incidence of intentional vehicle-reptile collisions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(3): 137 to 143.

Barko, V.A., J.T. Briggler and D.E. Ostendorf. 2004. Passive fishing techniques: A cause of turtle mortality in the Mississippi River. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1145 to 1150.

Beaudry, F., P.G. deMaynadier and M.L. Hunter Jr. 2008. Identifying road mortality at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biological Conservation 141:2550 to 2563.

Bell, N., E. Conroy, K. Wheatley, B. Michaud, C. Maracle, J. Pelletier, B. Filion and B. Johnson. 2010. The ways of knowing guide. Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Ontario. 99 p.

Bennett, A.M. and J.D. Litzgus. 2014. Injury Rates of Freshwater Turtles on a Recreational Waterway in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Herpetology 48(2):262 to 266.

Bishop, C.A., R.J. Brooks, J.H. Carey, P. Ng, R.J. Norstrom and D.R.S. Lean. 1991. The case for a cause ­effect linkage between environmental contamination and development in eggs of the Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina) from Ontario, Canada. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:512 to 547.

Bishop, C.A., P. Ng, K.E. Pettit, S.W. Kennedy, J.J. Stegeman, R.J. Norstrom and R.J. Brooks. 1998. Environmental contamination and developmental abnormalities in eggs and hatchlings of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin (1989 to 91). Environmental Pollution 101:143 to 156.

Boarman, W.I. 1997. Predation on turtles and tortoises by a “subsidized predator” in J. van Abbema. 1997. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles – An International Conference. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York, New York. xxiv + 490 p.

Bobyn, M.L. and R.J. Brooks.1994. Interclutch and interpopulation variation in the effects of incubation conditions on sex, survival and growth of hatchling turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Zoology 233(2):233 to 257.

Bolton, R.M. and R. J. Brooks. 2010. Impact of the Seasonal Invasion of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) on Turtle Reproductive Success. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 9(2):238 to 243.

Borkowski, R. 1997. Lead poisoning and intestinal perforations in a Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) due to fishing gear ingestion. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 28:109 to 113.

Bonin, J., J.-L. DesGranges, C.A. Bishop, J. Rodrigue, A. Gendron and J.E. Elliott. 1995. Comparative study of contaminants in the mudpuppy (amphibia) and the common snapping turtle (reptilia), St. Lawrence River, Canada. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:184 to 194.

Boutin, A., personal communication 2015. Éco-Nature. Département de la protection et de la conservation.

Brooks, R.J., D.A. Galbraith, E.G. Nancekivell and C.A. Bishop. 1988. Developing management guidelines for Snapping Turtles. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM166:174 to 179.

Brooks, R.J., G.P. Brown and D.A. Galbraith. 1991. Effects of a sudden increase in natural mortality of adults on a population of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:1314 to 1320.

Brown, G.P. 1992. Thermal and spatial ecology of a northern population of Snapping Turtles, Chelydra serpentina. Master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 98 p.

Brown, G.P., R.J. Brooks and J.A. Layfield. 1990. Radiotelemetry of body temperatures of free-ranging Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina) during summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:1659 to 1663.

Brown, G.P. and R.J. Brooks. 1993. Sexual and seasonal differences in activity in a northern population of Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentine). Herpetologica 49(3): 311 to 318.

Brown, G.P. and R.J. Brooks. 1994. Characteristics of and fidelity to hibernacula in a northern population of Snapping Turtles Chelydra serpentina. Copeia 1994(1):222 to 226.

Browne, C.L. 2003. The Status of Turtle Populations in Point Pelee National Park. Master of Science thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. 112 p.

Browne, C.L. and S.J. Hecnar. 2007. Species loss and shifting population structure of freshwater turtles despite habitat protection, Biological Conservation 138:421 to 429.

Bureau du Nionwentsïo. 2016. Écologie historique et connaissances écologiques traditionnelles huronnes-wendat relatives à douze espèces animales et végétales dans le Wendake Sud. Nation huronne-wendat. 136 p.

Cairns, N.A., L.J. Stoot, G. Blouin-Demers and S.J. Cooke. 2013. Refinement of bycatch reduction devices to exclude freshwater turtles from commercial fishing nets. Endangered Species Research 22:251 to 261.

Cairns, N.A., L.J. Stoot, G. Blouin-Demers and S.J. Cooke. 2017. Using Behavioral Observations to Develop Escape Devices for Freshwater Turtles Entrapped in Fishing Nets. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(1):4 to 14.

Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada. 2009. Amphibians and reptiles: They Don’t Give You Warts. [accessed November 2015].

Carrière, M.-A. 2007. Movement patterns and habitat selection of common map turtles (Graptemys geographica) in St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Ontario, Canada. Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 p.

Catling, P.M. and G. Mitrow. The Recent Spread and Potential Distribution of Phragmites australis subsp. australis in Canada. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 125(2):95 to 104.

Christiansen, J.L. and R.R. Burken. 1979. Growth and maturity of the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Iowa. Herpetologica 35:261 to 266.

Christiansen, J.L. and B.J. Gallaway. 1984. Raccoon removal, nesting success, and hatchling emergence in Iowa turtles with special reference to Kinosternon flavescens (Kinosternida). The Southwestern Naturalist 29(3):343 to 348.

Colteaux, B.C. and D.M. Johnson. 2017. Commercial harvest and export of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in the United States: trends and the efficacy of size limits at reducing harvest. Journal of Nature Conservation 35:13 to 19.

Compton, B.W. 1999. Ecology and conservation of the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in Maine. Master of Science thesis, University of Maine. 91 p.

Congdon, J.D., G.L. Breitenbach, R.C. van Loben Sels and D.W. Tinkle. 1987. Reproduction and nesting ecology of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in southeastern Michigan. Herpetologica 43:39 to 54.

Congdon, J.D., S.W. Gotte and R.W. McDiarmid. 1992. Ontogenetic Changes in Habitat Use by Juvenile Turtles, Chelydra serpentina and Chrysemys picta. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:241 to 248.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7:826 to 833.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping turtles (Chelydra serptentine): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zoologist 34:397 to 408.

Congdon, J.D., J.L. Greene and R.J. Brooks. 2008. Reproductive and nesting ecology of female snapping turtles, in A.C. Steyermark, M.S. Finkler and R.J. Brooks. Biology of the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. p. 123 to 134.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. vii + 36 p.

COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. vii + 47 p.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC’s assessment process and criteria. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Web site: [accessed October 2015] (presently not an active link).

Crews, D.T. Wibbels and W.N.H. Gutzke. 1989. Action of sex steroid hormones on temperature-induced sex determination in the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). General and comparative Endocrinology 76:159 to 166.

Crowley, J.F. 2006. Are Ontario Reptiles on the Road to Extinction? Anthropogenic Disturbance and Reptile Distributions within Ontario. Master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 67 p.

Cunnington, D.C. and R.J. Brooks. 1996. Bet-hedging theory and eigenelasticity: a comparison of the life histories of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:291 to 296.

de Solla, S.R., C.A. Bishop, G. Van Der Kraak and R.J. Brooks. 1998. Impact of organochlorine contamination on levels of sex hormones and external morphology of common Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) in Ontario, Canada, Environmental Health Perspectives 106(5): 253 to 260.

de Solla, S.R, K.J. Fernie and S. Ashpole. 2008. Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina) as bioindicators in Canadian Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin. II. Changes in hatching success and hatchling deformities in relation to persistent organic pollutants. Environmental Pollution 153: 529 to 536.

de Solla, S.R. and P.A. Martin. 2011. Absorption of current use pesticides by snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) eggs in treated soil. Chemosphere 85(5):820 to 825.

de Solla, S.R., K.E Palonen and P.A. Martin. 2014. Toxicity of pesticides associated with potato production, including fumigants, to Snapping Turtle eggs (Chelydra serpentina). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33:102 to 106.

Desroches, J.-F. and D. Rodrigue. 2004. Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin, Waterloo (Québec). 288 p.

Dimond, M.T. 1983. Sex of turtle hatchlings as related to incubation temperature. Proceedings of the 6th Reptile Symposium on Captive Propagation and Husbandry. Zoological consortium, Thumond (Maryland).

Dubois, Y., personal communication 2014. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec. Direction de la biodiversité et des maladies de la faune.

ECCC. 2014a. Mercury and the Environment. [accessed January 2016].

ECCC. 2014b. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Website: [accessed January 2016] (presently not an active link).

Eisenreich, K.M., S.M. Kelly and C.L. Rowe. 2009. Latent mortality of juvenile snapping turtles from the upper Hudson River, New York, exposed maternally and via the diet to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental Science and Technology 43: 6052 to 6057.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2013. Who hunts snapping turtles? in Serving the Public – ECO Annual Report 2012/13. The Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. p. 88 to 91.

Ernst, C.H. and J.E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 2nd edition, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 827 p.

Ewert, M.A. 2008. Embryos and incubation period of the Snapping Turtle, in A.C. Steyermark, M.S. Finkler and R.J. Brooks. The Biology of the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 225 p.

Farmer, R.G. and R.J. Brooks. Integrated risk factors for vertebrate roadkill in southern Ontario. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(6): 1215 to 1224.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010. L'enquête de 2010 sur la pêche récréative au Canada. Annexe D - Questions supplémentaires par juridiction, Ontario. [accessed June 2016].

Freedberg, S., M.A. Ewert and C.E. Nelson. 2001. Environmental effects on fitness and consequences for sex allocation in a reptile with environmental sex determination. Evolutionary Ecology Research 3: 953 to 967.

Freedberg, S., C. Lee and M. Pappas. 2011. Agricultural practices alter sex ratios in a reptile with environmental sex determination. Biological Conservation 144: 1159 to 1166.

Galbraith, D.A., C.A. Bishop, R.J. Brooks, W.L. Simser and K.P. Lampman. 1988. Factors affecting the density of common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:1233 to 1240.

Galbraith, D.A. and R.J. Brooks. 1989. Age estimates for snapping turtles. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:502 to 508.

Galbraith, D.A., R.J. Brooks and M.E. Obbard. 1989. The influence of growth rate on age and body size at maturity in female Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Copeia 1989(4):896 to 904.

Galbraith, D.A. 1994. Ecology research on snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in Ontario. Association for the Study of Reptilia and Amphibia Journal 1994:23 to 49.

Galois, P. and M. Ouellet. 2007. Traumatic injuries in eastern spiny softshell turtles (Apalone spinifera) due to recreational activities in the northern Lake Champlain basin. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6:288 to 293.

Gibbons, J.W. and L.E. Lovich. 1990. Sexual Dimorphism in Turtles with Emphasis on the Slider Turtle (Trachemys scripta). Herpetological monographs 4:1 to 29.

Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy and C.T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience 50:653 to 666.

Gibbs, J.P., S. Rouhani and L. Shams. 2017. Population status of freshwater turtles across a PCB contamination gradient. Aquatic Biology 26:57 to 68.

Gibbs, J.P. and W.G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle Populations. Conservation Biology 16:1647 to 1652.

Gillingwater, S.D. 2001. A selective herpetofaunal survey, inventory and biological research study of Rondeau Provincial Park. Unpublished report prepared for Rondeau Provincial Park.

Gillingwater, S.D., personal communication 2016. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the Canadian Herpetological Society.

Government of Ontario. 2017. Environmental Registry.

Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbour, Michigan. 378 p.

Haxton, T. 2000. Road mortality of Snapping Turtles, Chelydra serpentina, in central Ontario during their nesting period. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114:106 to 110.

Heppel, S.S. 1998. Application of the life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998: 367 to 375.

Holt, S.M. 2000. Development and evaluation of a model for turtle embryonic growth. Master’s thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Hudon, C., P. Gagnon and M. Jean 2005. Hydrological factors controlling the spread of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the St. Lawrence River (Quebec, Canada). Ecoscience 12:347 to 357.

IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [accessed October 2015]

Janzen, F. J. 1992. Heritable variation for sex ratio under environmental sex determination in the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Genetics 131:155 to 161.

Lagler, K.F. 1940. A Turtle Loss? American Wildlife 29(1):41 to 44.

Landler, L., M.S. Painter, B. Hopkins Coe, P.W. Youmans, W.A. Hopkins and J.B. Phillips. 2017. High levels of maternally transferred mercury disrupt magnetic responses of snapping turtle hatchlings (Chelydra serpentina). Environmental Pollution 228:19 to 25.

Larocque, S.M., A.H. Colotelo, S.J. Cooke, G. Blouin-Demers, T. Haxton and K.E. Smokorowski. 2012a. Seasonal patterns in bycatch composition and mortality associated with a freshwater hoop net fishery. Animal Conservation 15:53 to 60.

Larocque, S.M., S.J. Cooke and G. Blouin-Demers. 2012b. Mitigating bycatch of freshwater turtles in passively fished fyke nets through the use of exclusion and escape modifications. Fisheries Research 125 to 126:149 to 155.

Larocque, S.M., S.J. Cooke and G. Blouin-Demers. 2012c. A breath of fresh air: avoiding anoxia and mortality of freshwater turtles in fyke nets by the use of floats. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22:198 to 205.

LeDain, M.R.K., S.M. Larocque, L.J. Stoot, N. Cairns, G. Blouin-Demers and S.J. Cooke. 2013. Assisted recovery following prolonged submergence in fishing nets can be beneficial to turtles: an assessment with blood physiology and reflex impairment. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 12(1): 172 to 177.

Livaitis, J.A. and J.P. Tash. 2008. An approach toward understanding wildlife-vehicle collisions. Environmental Management 42(4):688 to 697.

Loncke, D.J. and M.E. Obbard. 1977. Tag success, dimensions, clutch size, and nesting site fidelity for the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina, (Reptilia, Testudines, Chelydridae) in Algonquin Park, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Herpetology 11:243 to 244.

Mali, I., M.W. Vandewege, S.K. Davis, M.R.J. Forstner. 2014. Magnitude of the Freshwater Turtle Exports from the US: Long Term Trends and Early Effects of Newly Implemented Harvest Management Regimes. PLoS ONE 9(1):e86478.

Markle, C.E., S.D. Gillingwater, R. Levick and P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The True Cost of Partial Fencing: Evaluating Strategies to Reduce Reptile Road Mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41(2):342–350.

Meeks, R.L. and G.R. Ultsch. 1990. Overwintering behavior of snapping turtles. Copeia 1990:880 to 884.

Michaletz, P.H. and K.P. Sullivan. 2002. Sampling channel catfish with tandem hoop nets in small impoundments. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:870 to 878.

Midwood, J.D., N.A. Cairns, L.J. Stoot, S.J. Cooke and G. Blouin-Demers. 2015. Bycatch mortality can cause extirpation in four freshwater turtle species. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 25:71 to 80.

Mosimann, J.E. and J.R. Bider. 1960. Variation, sexual dimorphism, and maturity in a Quebec population of the common Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:350 to 352.

Natural Resources Canada. 2004. Wetlands.[accessed August 2005].

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer. [accessed  December 2017].

Obbard, M.E. and R.J. Brooks. 1979. Factors affecting basking in a northern population of the common Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57(2):435 to 440.

Obbard, M.E. and R.J. Brooks. 1980. Nesting migrations of the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Herpetologica 36(2):158 to 162.

Obbard, M.E. and R.J. Brooks. 1981a. A radio-telemetry and mark-recapture study of activity in the common snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Copeia 1981:630 to 637.

Obbard, M.E. and R.J. Brooks. 1981b. Fate of overwintering clutches of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Algonquin Park, Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 95: 350 to 352.

Obbard, M.E. 1983. Population ecology of the common Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina, in north-central Ontario. PhD thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 184 p.

OMNR. 2015. 2015 Hunting Regulations Summary. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 88 p. [accessed November 2015]

OMSTARRT. 2016. Rationale for Ending the Harvest of Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in Ontario. Ontario Multi-Species Turtles at Risk Recovery Team. 42 p.

Parren, S.G. and M.A. Rice. 2004. Terrestrial overwintering of hatchling turtles in Vermont nests. Northeastern Naturalist 11(2):229 to 233.

Paterson, J.E., B.D. Steinberg and J.D. Litzgus. 2012. Generally specialized or especially general? Habitat selection by Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90:139 to 149.

Paterson, J.E., B.D. Steinberg and J.D. Litzgus. 2013. Not just any old pile of dirt: evaluating the use of artificial nesting mounds as conservation tools for freshwater turtles. Oryx 47(4):607 to 615.

Pell, S.M. 1941. Notes on the habits of the common Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina (Linn.), in central New York. Master of Science thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 85 p.

Pettit, K.E., C.A. Bishop and R.J. Brooks. 1995. Home range and movements of the common snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina serpentina, in a coastal wetland of Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario, Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 109:192 to 200.

Preston, W.B. 1982. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 128 p.

Reese, S.A., D.C. Jackson and G.R. Ultsch. 2002. The physiology of overwintering in a turtle that occupies multiple habitats, the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 75(5):432 to 438.

Rhen, T. and J.W. Lang. 1998. Among-family variation for environmental sex determination in reptiles. Evolution 52:1514 to 1520.

Riley, J.L. and J.D. Litzgus. 2013. Evaluation of predator-exclusion cages used in turtle conservation: cost-analysis, and effects on nest environment and proxies of hatchling fitness. Wildlife Research 40(6): 499 to 511.

Riley, J.L. and J.D. Litzgus. 2014. Cues used by Predators to Detect Freshwater Turtle Nests may Persist Late into Incubation. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 128:179 to 188.

Rowe, C.L. 2008. “The calamity of so long life”: life histories, contaminants, and potential emerging threats to long-lived vertebrates. BioScience 58:623 to 631.

Scheuhammer, A.M., S.L. Money, D.A. Kirk and G. Donaldson. 2003. Lead fishing sinkers and jigs in Canada: Review of their use patterns and toxic impacts on wildlife. Occasional Paper No. 108, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Schneider, J.C. 1998. Fate of dead fish in a small lake. American Midland Naturalist 140:192 to 196.

Seburn, D.C. and C.N.L. Seburn. 2000. Conservation priorities for the amphibians and reptiles of Canada. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund Canada and Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network. 92 p.

Serafy, J.E., S.J. Cooke, G.A. Diaz, J. Graves, M. Hall, M. Shivji and Y. Swimmer. 2012. Evaluating circle hooks in commercial, recreational and artisanal fisheries: research status and needs for improved conservation and management. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:371 to 391.

Spencer, R.-J. 2002. Experimentally testing nest site selection: fitness trade-offs and predation risk in turtles. Ecology 83:2136 to 2144.

Steen, D.A., S.C. Sterrett, A.M. Heupel and L.L. Smith. 2010. Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina, overland movements near the southeastern extent of its range. Georgia Journal of Science 68(4).

Steen, D.A., B.C. Hopkins, J.U. van Dyke and W.A. Hopkins. 2014. Prevalence of Ingested Fish Hooks in Freshwater Turtles from Five Rivers in the Southeastern United States. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91368.

Stoot, L.J., N.A. Cairns, G. Blouin-Demers and S.J. Cooke. 2013. Physiological disturbances and behavioural impairment associated with the incidental capture of freshwater turtles in a commercial fyke-net fishery. Endangered Species Research 21:13 to 23.

Turtle Conservation Fund. 2002. A global action plan for conservation of tortoises and freshwater turtles. Strategy and funding prospectus 2002 to 2007. Conservation International and Chelonian Research Foundation, Washington (D.C.). 30 p.

van Dijk, P.P. 2012. Chelydra serpentina Assessment. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012. [accessed October 2015].

Weisrock, D.W. and F.J. Janzen. 1999. Thermal and fitness-related consequences of nest location in Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta). Functional Ecology 13:94 to 101.

Wilcox, K.L., S.A. Petrie, L.A. Maynard and S.W. Meyer. 2003. Historical distribution and abundance of Phragmites australis at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29:664 to 680.

Wirsing, A.J., J.R. Phillips, M.E. Obbard and D.L. Murray. 2012. Incidental nest predation in freshwater turtles: inter- and intraspecific differences in vulnerability are explained by relative crypsis. Oecologia 168 (4):977 to 988.

WWF. 2015. Wildlife Trade Tracker. World Wildlife Fund. [accessed November 2015]

Yntema, C.L. 1976. Effects of incubation temperatures on sex differentiation in the turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Journal of Morphology 150:453 to 462.

Appendix A: Subnational conservation ranks of the Snapping Turtle in Canada and the United States

Table A-1. Subnational conservation ranks of the Snapping Turtle in Canada and the United States
Global (G) rank National (N) rank Subnational (S) rank
G5 Canada (N5) British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (S3), New Brunswick (S4), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S3), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S3)
G5 United States (N5)

Alabama (S5), Arizona (SNA), Arkansas (S5), North Carolina (S5), South Carolina (SNR), Colorado (S4), Connecticut (S5), North Dakota (SNR), South Dakota (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S5), Florida (S5), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (S5), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (S3), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (SNR), Montana (S3), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (SNR), New Mexico (S5), New York (S5), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5), Washington (SNA), Wisconsin (S4S5), Wyoming (S4)

Rank Definitions (NatureServe, 2017)

G5, N5 and S5 – Secure: At very low risk of extirpation or elimination due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats.

S3 – Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats or other factors.

S4 – Apparently Secure: At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

S4S5 – Secure/Apparently Secure: At no risk to fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to an extensive to very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, with little to some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats or other factors.

SNA – Not applicable: a conservation rank is not deemed applicable because the species is not considered a conservation target.

SNR – Unranked: not ranked because the species’ conservation status has not been assessed.

Appendix B: Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) goals and targets.

Conservation planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that implementation of management plans may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the management plan itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

Most of the activities carried out to conserve Snapping Turtles and their habitat will also have a positive effect on other species that use similar habitat. Conservation of aquatic habitats and adjacent terrestrial habitat will help maintain their rich biodiversity. In addition, the reduction and mitigation of threats to the Snapping Turtle may help to reduce mortality in other animal species (for example, use of ecopassages or fencing to reduce road mortality, improved fishing techniques capable of reducing bycatch, measures to reduce pollution of aquatic habitats). Some of these measures are likely to be found in other recovery documents, particularly those that deal with aquatic species and species that inhabit wetlands and adjacent areas. Table B-1 provides examples of species that may benefit from management of the Snapping Turtle population in Canada; other species that are not listed may also benefit.

Table B-1. Species that may benefit from conservation and management measures for the Snapping Turtle in areas where this turtle species is present
Common name Scientific name SARA status
Eastern Foxsnake (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence population) Pantherophis gloydi Endangered
Eastern Foxsnake(Carolinian population) Pantherophis gloydi Endangered
Lake Erie Watersnake Nerodia sipedon insularum Endangered
Fowler’s Toad Anaxyrus fowleri Endangered
King Rail Rallus elegans Endangered
Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Endangered
Eastern Sand Darter Ammocrypta pellucida Threatened
Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Threatened
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened
Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta Threatened
Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera Threatened
Blanding’s Turtle (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence population) Emydoidea blandingii Threatened
Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus Special Concern
Grass Pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus Special Concern
Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus Special Concern
Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Special Concern

Given that life-cycle and habitat needs may differ for all of these species, as may other specific needs, management actions should recognize the potential for synergistic recovery actions. Wherever possible, natural ecosystem processes should be maintained and allowed to evolve without human interference, because these are the processes to which species are adapted.

The possibility that the present management plan will inadvertently have negative effects on the environment and on other species was considered. The majority of recommended actions are non-intrusive in nature, including surveys and communication activities. The present management plan should therefore not produce significant negative effects.

Page details

Date modified: