Lanthanotus borneensis -- Borneo Earless Monitor

This is just an informational reference for anyone who searches this species here.

Lanthanotus borneensis, the Borneo Earless Monitor, is listed as endangered by the IUCN, is CITES Appendix II, and is additionally fully protected by legislation in its native range. No specimens have been legally exported from its home range, and none have been recorded by CITES as imported into the US from any country. Because of these facts all specimens are illegal to possess in the US.

https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/...or_lizards.pdf

https://trade.cites.org/

https://reptile-database.reptarium.c...tidae%27%29%29

Originally Posted by Socratic Monologue

This is just an informational reference for anyone who searches this species here.

Lanthanotus borneensis, the Borneo Earless Monitor, is listed as endangered by the IUCN, is CITES Appendix II, and is additionally fully protected by legislation in its native range. No specimens have been legally exported from its home range, and none have been recorded by CITES as imported into the US from any country. Because of these facts all specimens are illegal to possess in the US.

https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/...or_lizards.pdf

https://trade.cites.org/

https://reptile-database.reptarium.c...tidae%27%29%29

Thank you very much for this information you posted, people interested in this specie needs to know.


It would probably be a good idea to post a link to this page/post on the ad....


John, Thanks again!

It seems I've neglected to include a link to the IUCN Red List for the species. Here it is:

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/102342572/102342580

Another interesting but slightly complicated update: in 2021, some L. borneensis entered the US with CITES export permits (note that the CITES database doesn't get updated until October 31 of the following year -- so 2021 data isn't available until Oct 31, 2022). These were:

Ten live animals, listed as CB, from Czech Republic for zoological use;
Seventeen live animals, listed as CB, from Italy for commercial use.

This is all academic, though, since because no live specimens left their native range with the permission of the countries in that range, all these imported specimens are prohibited under Lacey (which prohibits both illegally acquired specimens and offspring of illegally acquired specimens).

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). So, any claim that purported CB animals were "cleared" (or similar wording) for entry into the US can be misleading.

I am Giacomo Ceccarelli CCCGCM79C10E256T, the exporter of those from Italy .
You are clearLY speaking about things you totally ignore ,
1) Cites II species required a 3-177 customs clearance
2) Range states DID export those Animals before they have been cites listed.
2a) I can state that because usfws at First set them on hold , asking me and my importer to provide all paper Trail back from 7 years ago . I did

Bottom line: if you have a solkd bullef proof record , you can clear earless monitor


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 .��

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.

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.

I edited my comment. Its meaningless to argue with persons that think that an old Bro or some website are The Law.

Earless monitors are such a boring species , I wouldnt buy It if It was 1$

John Zilmer,
To say the legitimately cleared borneensis needed no CITES permit for entry is not true. No where in CFR § 23.20 does it say CB specimens need no CITES permit. I’ve never heard such a thing and I’m surprised you wrote that. CITES 1,II,III cb specimens need to be listed as Source C. You can’t import a CB ball python without a CJTES permit.

The simple truth of the matter is, which some of you fail to get a grip with. Is some of these animals lineage have a paper trail going back, exported under permit from a state of origin. CITES permits where issued. This paperwork and CITES permits where inspected by our government authorities . Government authorities who have more rescources than faunaclassifieds and Articles from Google, which are only Mostly accurate.

Here is the passage I was referring to:



CITES itself also doesn't require an import permit for Appendix II, but only an export permit. Appendix I requires both export and import permits. It isn't really a major point, though.

The claim that no L. borneensis have been exported from range states is made in the linked report from TRAFFIC. This isn't an 'article from Google', but from an organization that is basically a part of Cambridge University. In other words, a credible source.

If anyone has any actual documentation -- not simple denial and disparagement, but documentation -- that disputes any claims please post that documentation here. This is an informational thread, and the more actual information the better.

Shifting gears a bit: there is also a lot of discussion that could be had about the problem with inserting even a little bit of perceived legitimacy into the trade in a very widely smuggled endangered species. This is the same sort of discussion that is had with elephant ivory: carving out a small amount of the trade and legally legitimating it (in ivory, material that is antique/pre-ban, or confiscated and stockpiled by authorities) can and does serve to enable increased laundering of illegally trafficked material and thus undermine conservation goals.

Given that worry, it is hard to give a charitable interpretation to the eagerness to convince people that some few of these animals are of legal origin. It is something that certainly requires at the very least conclusive evidence, and a solid plan for ensuring that lineage gets traced accurately (perhaps something akin to the stud books for some chelonian species). None of that has been offered with this species, nor others in similar circumstances.

All the “conclusive evidence” I assume one is would need , the current state of the subject matter is. CITES issued permits, and USFWS cleared certain animals with verifiable accompanying documentation to prove legitimacy of parent stock. I mean, what more does one need?