Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman79
2) Range states DID export those Animals before they have been cites listed.
|
"None of the three actual and potential range States has permitted legal export of Earless Monitor Lizards, therefore by extension parent stock have been illegally obtained, taken from their natural habitat." -- TRAFFIC article linked above, p. 57.
"It is, however, a totally protected species (meaning that any trade is prohibited) in its potential range States, i.e. in Malaysia since 1971, in Brunei Darussalam since 1978 and in Indonesia since 1980. Penalties for trading the species range from a fine of USD1600 and one year’s imprisonment (Brunei Darussalam) to USD7850 and three years’ imprisonment (Malaysia), to USD8600 and five years’ imprisonment (Indonesia)." -- ibid, p. 55.
Without further evidence, it looks like this point is 'he says, she says'. Readers might have to decide who they're going to believe. Posting copies of the relevant paperwork might help your case, though we all know that a copy of a form doesn't guarantee that it isn't faked, or purchased.
Quoting myself: "It is also worth noting that since L. borneensis is CITES Appendix II, and the specimens were listed as CB, no import permit is required for entry into the US (per 50 CFR § 23.20). "
My sloppy wording. I meant (of course, given the content of the link to US regs) no
CITES import permit was required. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- totally my fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman79
PS: pogona has never been exported from Australia , nor Egernia or Nephrurus and a ton of others ( snakes, geckos, turtles). Write a monologue about that too .��
|
Yes, I understand that of course. A few points that make that bit of snark irrelevant:
1) Most of those were well established in captivity before their CITES listing, thus making their trade hard to track down.
2) None of those are currently being trafficked in numbers that are likely to lead to their extinction.
3) Many/most of these are established in captivity to an extent that attempts to undermine the illegal market in them will not make any difference.
4) The fact that other animals are trafficked doesn't make this one not trafficked (a version of the 'tu quoque' fallacy, I think). Would that it were so.
You clearly don't appreciate resistance to illegal trade in reptiles. No problem, lots of people don't, virtually all of whom have financial reasons for this. I get it. It isn't those people who I'm trying to get information to.
