If you are asking for exporters to share rare and extremely hard to acquire paperwork on a website like this. Free for any smuggler to get a format to use and give the appearance of legitimacy of his animals. I don’t think that’s going to be helpful.

In this situation, I think that a responsible sale would involve, at the very least, (a) documentation of the legal export of specimens from a range country, and (b) a credible account establishing that the specimens for sale are descended from the legally exported stock.

Simply having import permits into the US doesn't establish that the animals are legal under Lacey, nor that they're not of smuggled lineage. Mr. Ceccarelli has pointed that out himself:

Because these mentioned genera were listed only recently or not at all, there aren't any CITES import permits on record into the US, but the fact that smuggled lineage specimens are granted import into the US can be confirmed with other species. Adelphobates galactonotus has never been exported live from Brazil for commercial use, per CITES and per their own government's claim (the only CITES permit on record is in 2014 to Australia for scientific use; Australia hasn't exported any since then). But nonetheless the US imports them regularly -- mostly from Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands if that gives any clues as to their origin.

I think the point Mr Ceccarelli was making us that it’s common knowledge Egernia, Nephrurus, and others where never exported from AU. He is saying that under certain circumstances the L. Borneensis where granted paperwork to leave one of the range states. So the point is these LB have more a right to be here than the Pagona that have been here for decades.


Also just for the record I have no affiliation with the current seller of the Borneensis on fauna, Nor have I imported any from Mr Ceccarelli. However I am happy to see that Legal avenues are being explored, and successful. And I for one look forward to the advancement of this species in USA Herpetoculture.

So far, there is no evidence for that claim. That's a classic rhetorical tactic, though: assuming the conclusion. Fools lots of people all the time.

If you ask USFW if "cleared to enter the US" means that the animal in question is thereby legal, they will tell you that is not the case. If an animal is found to have paperwork that has been issued contrary to CITES etc after it has been imported then USFW considers it illegal and potentially subject to seizure and prosecution. You don't even have to take my word for it, you can do what I did was ask USFW.

Ed

Edward,

Yes I agree with you. If you ask them if it’s okay to do something wrong, they will say you aren’t supposed to do that. I agree 100%.

Links to more information from legitimate sources:

PROPOSAL TO LIST LANTHANOTUS BORNEENSIS IN APPENDIX I IN MALAYSIA -- reiterates claims of protected status in range states, and discusses known trafficking countries. Discusses details of protections, including:

"Some Indonesian companies have permission to keep protected species for captive- breeding and are allowed to export a set quota each year (Partono, 2014). Earless Monitor Lizards are not, and never have been included on this list; therefore no Earless Monitor Lizards may be removed from the wild for commercial purposes, including removal for use in commercial breeding operations."

https://cites.org/sites/default/file...AC28-22-05.pdf

German national arrested in Indonesia on suspicion of smuggling Earless Monitor Lizards -- discussion of common laundering of smuggled specimens: "International investigations are essential to debunk the myth that reptiles are being ‘captive bred’, whereas in reality claims of captive breeding are frequently used as a cover to enable the animals to be traded internationally, unchallenged"

https://www.traffic.org/news/german-...nitor-lizards/

I totally agree with you.

in my personal opinion is totally illogical, that they ask to show the paperworks in public ,That would put the tools to forge the documents in the hands of smugglers. .

We legally work with different imports, and it is our duty as a company to deliver all documentation to the costumer.

I have not seen any part of the law that says that we must share the paperworks in public or to anyone who asks to see them. The paperworks are a private document and should only be shared with the buyer of the animal.

Of course, other reasons to refuse to publicly show the legitimacy of specimens is (a) that the purported documentation doesn't exist, and (b) there are holes in it that could be uncovered with enough eyes on it (e.g. the person who the paperwork actually belongs to could speak up).

The notion that this information is being withheld for concerns of promoting trafficking isn't credible, since these sales themselves are promoting trafficking; everyone who digs at all is aware that even animals claimed to be CB are virtually certainly WC when coming out of certain countries (Indonesia, for example).

People who are honestly skeptical of the legitimacy of these animals aren't going to be fooled by this sort of hand waving, and the people who don't care about the legal and (more importantly) conservation issues aren't going to care about the permit one way or another anyway.

Besides, there's more to a paper trail than having a permit in hand; to show that the animals for sale are the ones on the permit, there are financial documents to be considered -- payments made to the importer/exporter listed on the permit, FedEx tracking numbers to show the movement of animals from the importer to the seller, an accounting of numbers of animals on the permit vs how many are alleged to be covered under that permit. The import permit itself is just one small part of showing that animals that can be very reasonably assumed to be trafficked or descended from smuggled stock are legitimate. The fact that this little bit of the paper trail isn't shared with those who request it strongly implies that there is a lot more being hidden.

As far as legitimate paper trial from the original source is concerned, you have a point. What you fail to address is the consequence of once it is confiscated, what then?
Typically it is given to some authorised person for disposal since the Gov does not facilitate confiscated animals.
These include zoos, museums and even reptile dealers. I personally know one wholesale dealer that is regularly given confiscated shipments/animals by FWC.
At this point, when he sells these animals, are they illegal to own?
Is the paperwork that FWC gives him to claim them inappropriate?
Who's authority trumps who?
Can FWC legally give him authority to posses and then sell?