Ban On Internet Sales of Animals

I found this article on Yahoo this morning, wasn't sure where i should put it on Fauna so I just put it here since it'll get more exposure... I hope the link works,its quite long!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050817/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The article focusses on the sale of endangered species; sales of certain species are restricted anyway so that this would only reinforce laws that are already in place. The law does not propose to restrict other sorts of animal internet sales although an organization proposes that. It wasn't PETA, but the same sort of rhetoric.

I think that policing such a ban would be so impossible that no one would pass such a law. The article states how Ebay does not permit animal sales, but I see them for sale all the time, people will sell an expensive terrarium and mention that they still have the lizard or snake or what have you...

Unless the advertising is for forbidden species (and I do not support that) there is no harm in internet advertising. In fact, many rescue and adoption agencies for animals are online.

Lucille, you obviously breezed over the 1st paragraph...
"Online sales of threatened and endangered species are increasing, an animal welfare organization said Tuesday, calling on governments worldwide to ban Internet sales of all animals."

"In one week, the International Fund for Animal Welfare found more than 9,000 live animals or products for sale online —70 percent of which were protected species"

This statement from the article seems very misleading...it seems to imply that most animals being sold online are endangered...either they are just misusing the word "protected" or they are intentionally trying to mislead those that don't know the difference between that and "endangered". I may be wrong but I can't believe the actual percentage is that high.

A protected animal could mean anything...alot of herps are "protected" in the area that they are native to but may be freely bought, bred and sold elsewhere.

Anyway, I think that something like this has a very remote chance of being passed...it's a very extremist view on things and most reasonable people realize that it's a much better use of resources to go after the bad guys than to impose an all encompassing ban of all animal sales on the internet...I would think such a ban would be nearly impossible to enforce.


--Liz

Originally Posted by montezuma

Lucille, you obviously breezed over the 1st paragraph...
"Online sales of threatened and endangered species are increasing, an animal welfare organization said Tuesday, calling on governments worldwide to ban Internet sales of all animals."

Montezuma, you obviously did not closely read what I wrote:


The law does not propose to restrict other sorts of animal internet sales although an organization proposes that.

I will be reading the article momentarily, but to respond to this quote

"In one week, the International Fund for Animal Welfare found more than 9,000 live animals or products for sale online —70 percent of which were protected species"

, and some of the comments:
Aren't CITES II animals considered 'protected'? This includes all boas, pythons, monitor lizards, crocodilians (except members of those groups that are CITES I); as well as many turtles, tortoises, and lizards, etc. As such, I would not be terribly surprised to find that the figure stated (70%) is pretty close. (That said, I'm off to read the article...well, I'm off to work and will read the article when I have a few minutes)

Originally Posted by hhmoore

I will be reading the article momentarily, but to respond to this quote, and some of the comments:
Aren't CITES II animals considered 'protected'? This includes all boas, pythons, monitor lizards, crocodilians (except members of those groups that are CITES I); as well as many turtles, tortoises, and lizards, etc. As such, I would not be terribly surprised to find that the figure stated (70%) is pretty close. (That said, I'm off to read the article...well, I'm off to work and will read the article when I have a few minutes)

I should have gone into more detail of what I was referring to, I was only giving one example...like I said "A protected animal could mean anything...alot of herps are "protected" in the area that they are native to but may be freely bought, bred and sold elsewhere."

Unless I misunderstood the article when I read it they were referring the illegal trade of endangered animals when they refer to it as a "cyber black market", as I understand it Cites animals are completely legal if legally acquired.

--Liz

The animal protection whackos cannot force a law that bans all advertising as such because of Freedom of Speech protections in the Constitution. However, they can try to pressure internet service providers to obey their demands. Until they can get porno and drugs that give you a 24-hour boner banned from the internet, I don't think they will succeed.

ok - so the article is based on the subject of illegal trafficking, with the call for stricter regulation by IFAW. I cannot actually speak to the figures quoted above, as I do not have the IFAW's gathered information for review - however, it certainly would not be surprising to find that the took a truth and shifted the context to their purpose (ie. the percentage of live animals AND PRODUCTS for sale on the internet that are afforded some degree of protection)
I wish I could say that it is nothing to worry about, but I have seen the legislative process in action. I don't know what the situation across the big pond is, but here in the US, the powers that be (and many of the people) seem to feel that excessive regulation is a darned good thing. (look at another cause that is near and dear to many hearts - gun control...it already exists, yet there are many that cry out for more regulation). The statement is made in the article that people must educate themselves on the law prior to purchase (DUH!!), but most of the people dealing with illegal animals (or illegal anything) already know that what they are doing is against the law. That being the case, further legislation only impacts the law abiding majority...and is therefore pretty much unnecessary (if the people performing illegal acts were concerned with the fact that their activities were illegal, they would not be conducting them under current law, and further laws are not going to sway THEM from their paths).

are reading only a few of the reasons of trying to ban on-lines sales that goes past just animals. It is beyond animals as to the tax revenue that is lost on on-line sales as a whole. Yes, there are multiple infractions of the animal sales of Internet that meets the Lacey Act as i have directed to some people even on this forum on the classifieds and in particular some species of turtles stemming from point of origin and shipped to my state and or even size of turtles being offered for sale. Also the sale of venomous has some people and state concerned. The tax thing is a over all consideration of federal and may of not being a part of what the original post on this subject of on-line sales even mentioned. My state Governor has tried to put in force the collection of tax on Internet on-line sales from my state on sites like eBay, Live Deal USA, Yahoo Auction , etc. I know that certain states do collect tax on the on-line sales but normally it is of the business part of people that makes a living on these sales or ones that have tax numbers. It doesn't matter whether animal or non-animal. So involved is the infraction of sales of animals and plus the lost revenue of tax. Then it wasn't even mentioned about the shipping problem that we know goes on unlawful shipping of live animals. So it is a combination of things even if not mentioned.