Notices |
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please note that the information requested during registration will be used to determine your legitimacy as a participant of this site. As such, any information you provide that is determined to be false, inaccurate, misleading, or highly suspicious will result in your registration being rejected. This is designed to try to discourage as much as possible those spammers and scammers that tend to plague sites of this nature, to the detriment of all the legitimate members trying to enjoy the features this site provides for them.
Of particular importance is the REQUIREMENT that you provide your REAL full name upon registering. Sorry, but this is not like other sites where anonymity is more the rule.
Also your TRUE location is important. If the location you enter in your profile field does not match the location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected. As such, I strongly urge registrants to avoid using a VPN service to register, as they are often used by spammers and scammers, and as such will be blocked when discovered when auditing new registrations.
Sorry about all these hoops to jump through, but I am quite serious about blocking spammers and scammers at the gate on this site and am doing the very best that I can to that effect. Trust me, I would rather be doing more interesting things with my time, and wouldn't be making this effort if I didn't think it was worthwhile.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 07:47 AM
|
#11
|
|
There is the added entry of confiscated shipments.
I know plenty of zoos and dealers that the Feds or local Game and Fish give confiscated animals too.
These do not come with country of origin agreements attached and may be sold or traded freely.
If the fact that they did not get here legally still sticks in your craw than don't buy any but don't assume they are not legally bred and/or available once they clear Game and Fish. There are plenty of people who keep things off of sites like this just because of this kind of "guilty until proven innocent" reactions.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 10:57 AM
|
#12
|
|
Any animal descended from stock that was acquired in violation of any foreign law is in violation of US law, no matter what any US agency says or does (short of Congressional amendment of the act, or a court finding the act or a relevant provision of it in conflict with some superseding principle or legislation). Anything else is just more laundering -- "legal" in practical terms only.
"There are plenty of people who keep things off of sites like this" -- that's a good thing. What people do in dark alleys is going to continue no matter what, but normalizing the free and open support of smuggling because of narrow and short sighted self-interest isn't laudable. This isn't directed toward any one person in particular, but is a general statement.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 12:34 PM
|
#13
|
|
John has an answer for everything. So what are these agencies supposed to do with the confiscated animals?? Huh?? Just toss them in an incinerator? No, they find credible homes for them. And when those people have success with those animals, they get offered out. Yes its unfortunate animals get smuggled but not everyone who owns is contributing to the crime. Your perspective is very one sided and you have a habit of polluting various ads.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 12:54 PM
|
#14
|
|
John doesn't quite understand that once the animals are "surrendered" their legal status is no longer an issue. The country of origin is asked if they want them back but if that country "surrenders" them to the Department holding them that Department can do with them whatever they please...legally.
And yes, euthanasia is one form they frequently use, especially if nobody wants them or they are a heavily regulated ( not necessarily rare in captivity) species like Radiated Tortoises which makes them more difficult to place!
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 01:05 PM
|
#15
|
|
I'll refer interested readers to the text of Lacey ( here) and to a somewhat analogous recent case here of Adelphobates galactonotus (different in that galacs are CITES listed) that illustrates how things are supposed to go.
Again, this is only directed to those readers who are interested -- anyone who wishes to dismiss the information I (or anyone) offers is going to dismiss it. If anyone is regularly offended by my concern for wildlife trafficking I respectfully recommend they add me to their 'ignore' list, thank you.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 01:33 PM
|
#16
|
|
Thank you for the links John.
The second article corroborates my point.
A quote from the article:
"Once the investigation finishes, the Service works to find permanent homes".
And the frogs went to a "zoo".
I do not condone illegal activity. But can we retroactively ban something we now feel is not right just because it doesn't fit our now conclusion? Are the frogs being "illegally" held at that zoo because they were "illegally" obtained in the first place?
Of course not.
Can the zoo legally lone out froglets produced to other zoo's NOT in Brazil?
I think you'll find that they can and will do so
and they will eventually end up in the animal trade.....legally- like some rugosa are.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 05:16 PM
|
#17
|
|
The animals in such cases still are held in violation of Lacey, unless there is some legal provision not in that text (I assume there are legal principles that address the temporary holding of illegal animals for USFWS prior to their repatriation). If anyone knows of such a provision, please cite it here. There are in fact provisions in USFWS policy for CITES plants -- the PRC program, which does not have an analogous program for animals that I'm aware of.
There's a difference between 'in violation of legislation' and risking seizure and prosecution -- in this and really in every minute of every US citizen's life. This is getting into semantics, though.
One reason (I'll go out on a limb and say "the only reason") USFWS doesn't euthanize intercepted animals is anticipated public backlash. The vast majority of people, I'll wager, would pitch a royal fit if they found out USFWS was killing seized animals. (These are the same sort of people who "rescue" an abused animal at PetSmart by buying the poor thing, and then often willfully and culpably ignore the fact that PetSmart will take that money and buy two more animals and abuse them -- a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.) This backlash would be counterproductive to trafficking prevention, and would be mired in ignorance, and would tarnish USFWS's reputation in new and lasting ways, so they reasonably steer clear of that practice.
They don't 'find homes' for these animals because it assists their mission of slowing wildlife trafficking. Much to the contrary, the existence of such a species in private hands greatly increases the ease of laundering illegal specimens. This is why, for example, seized ivory is destroyed in spite of the fact that it could be sold to raise money for elephant conservation, or to assist people live more peaceably with elephants in their native range. It is destroyed because then it is clear that all ivory harvested after 1989 (except for a couple lots that were sold because of, you guessed it, public pressure) is illegal.
And to this point: supposing that there are such rugosa that were seized by USFWS (not by a foreign agency of course) and handed over to some US institution or individual, the following would have to be documented in order for a person to claim that their particular rugosa (as Lacey deals with specimens, not species) is a member of this category:
1) That the ancestral stock of their animal came into US captivity through the sort of process described above;
2) That this process allowed that the offspring of these animals could legally change hands in spite of Lacey's restrictions to the contrary;
3) That their animal is in fact the offspring of the "legal" breeding stock (birth photos, audited breeding records, microchipping) through both the chain of custody of individual specimens and through successive reproductive generations.
The reason that all this documentation might be expected for this species where it might not be expected for an endangered and export-prohibited species such as Phyllobates terribilis or an unlisted but export-prohibited species such as Anteresia is that neither of these are smuggled (much?) anymore, and widely captive bred, and the former is even available as legally exported lines in a subhobby that polices itself relatively well regarding smuggling. Rugosa, on the other hand, are virtually 100% likely to be smuggled-line (or actually WC) specimens outside of Australia in a hobby that has a strong resistance to acting responsibly on these matters.
Not that even all this documentation would establish that the specimen is technically legal (without legislative justification of such a claim) nor that it wasn't in fact descended from animals smuggled out of their home country (because it was; that's not at issue), but would establish that the specimen arrived here in special circumstances that make the moral calculus different.
That would need not make a difference in the judgement of everyone, though, as the ivory example shows -- since allowing such specimens to be possessed at all undermines attempts to reduce smuggling. A person who is committed to ending smuggling, full stop, will not possess even these psuedo-legal specimens since they allow for easy laundering and a very reduced public pressure against illegal specimens of the species.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 06:09 PM
|
#18
|
|
Not sure how we went from "Well, they're all smuggled lineage" to "A person who is committed to ending smuggling, full stop".
We are hobbiests, not activists here.
The "burn it all down" mindset is a rather new concept in this industry (and the world). For those of us who have been around for decades it just isn't realistic and not the point of animal husbandry. Plus, we remember when Austrailia was an open country and have seen these animals legally for sale. We also know that zoos trade species and some end up in hobbiest hands if they have the funds or trade value in wanted species to get them. If you had first hand knowledge of how the AAZPA works you would know this. So don't assume some animals are "all illegal/smuggled lineage". This is just not true.
The Feds have no proper facilities or training to take care of wildlife . They are law enforment. They are interested in law not animal welfare. Anybody who has received animals held by them for very long will tell you this.
We hobbiest, on the other hand, care about the animals themselves and not so much the ever developing kaleidoscope of regulations pertaining to them in captivity as these are not global views nore even necessarily the views of the actual people native to where they are from, who may kill them for food or from fear and, commonly in developed countries, by human habitation and development itself.
Once an animal is in the community and legally available, that breeder is expected to have "reasonable" documentation for his protection and any potential buyers protection. If we start splitting hairs as to who's is the more legitimate and who's isn't, we risk ending the hobby. Does nothing for those animals left to their demise in the wild if that is where they are imperiled in the first place.
Australia did not protect their animals because they are all rare but because they are unique and most of them are in no danger of exterpation from being smuggled out of the country, including rugosa.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 07:15 PM
|
#19
|
|
Some of us might take on the "activist" label without shame. That's getting kind of far afield from the main argument here, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktiles
Plus, we remember when Austrailia was an open country and have seen these animals legally for sale.
|
That predates me somewhat, and the Australian legislation from that period isn't entirely easy to find (if a person knew their way around their agencies, that would probably help).
Can you direct to any documented information on what the details of export from Australia was like in the mid-late 20th century? Accurate info about this would really help clarify these issues.
|
|
|
01-17-2022, 09:41 PM
|
#20
|
|
My point is Fauna was not created as an activist platform.
As far as documentation about Australia, the places that sold imported animals from there are not in existance any more being it was back in the late 1960's so I'm pretty sure there is no paper trail. The Tarpon Zoo in Tarpon Springs, FL sold animals from all over the world. I remember Johnston Crocodiles from Australia being sold for $200.00 there
Also, back then, boxes arriving from out of the country were "surprise packages" of any number of species-including venomous ones, and no packing lists were given nore even required.
The last time I personally saw imported rugosa was by an AAZPA affiliated importer/exporter from England in the '80's who was a dealer of mammals but also imported birds and reptiles into the US.
I actually took a video of those shinglebacks about the same time portable video cassette records were first commercially available.
|
|
|
Join
now to reply to this thread or open new ones
for your questions & comments! FaunaClassifieds.com
is the largest online community about Reptile
& Amphibians, Snakes, Lizards and number one
classifieds service with thousands of ads to look
for. Registration is open to everyone and FREE.
Click Here to Register!
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 PM.
|
|