My thoughts to this report and only commenting as soon as it affects me, because I cannot speak for others and I try to write my thoughts as clear as possible (there is no vague) :
It is off topic in this thread. Would be better to place the discussion to this in the dicussion sector. I know there is a lot of dicussion about some animals in focus right now, but this is a discussion topic. And I can understand different opinion if its about different animals.
I knew this report was coming. As I personally spoke with the author around an hour last week.
I was not afraid about what he is writing, because what he is reporting everyone in the reptile bussiness is dicussing a long time. How do we work with animals that are in captivity with unknown sources. Like lanthanotus, Australian species (acanthurus, bearded dragons, …), New Caledonian geckos (Correlophus ciliatus , Mniarogecko chahoua,....), Sri Lanca agamids,..., just to name a few. Some of those many people keep and breed. And many more then just the once described in the report trade this animals.
Just to give you some background information (and again, actually it does not belong here but in the dicussion sector):
I am breeding reptiles (Chamäleons, Geckos, Iguanas, just to name a few and who says I am not breeding is a 100% liar and is anytime invited in my house to prove him different, and actually heresay is forbidden in this forum. Bring up the people saying this lies, so we can make a small video conference showing my incubators, animals hatching, mating, … to prove their lies) and I trade with reptiles.
So far so good, that is nothing wrong about that.
I am buying reptiles for reselling. Nothing wrong about that.
If people offer me reptiles, or people ask me to find reptiles for their collections, I buy them or sell them or just organise the shipping between them. Nothing wrong about it.
One major point that is important: I buy and sell reptiles that are legal. Nothing wrong about it.
The report exactly writes the conversation I had with the author in Hamm in the September show. He was at my table and I asked him what he is interested in. He showed interst in Abronia. The only Abronia I had at my table were captive breed animals that I bought for a customer in the US from a breeder in France. By the way, those animals were legaly shipped to my customer in the US end of September. Cleared reports in Germany. Cleared reports by USFW and customs in the USA.
Nothing wrong about it.
In the phonecall last week with the author I was so free to explain him, (because he asked in a email), that I did not buy the Abronia eggs but that those are livebearing animals.
Abronias are widly traded in the US and in Europe and in the rest of the world. And they are legally shipped from the US to Europe and backwards. Again: Legally, otherwise German or US authorities would not allow it.
That is all the report saying about me. Nothing wrong about it.
There is nothing illegal in somebody offering me CB Abronia and me finding buyers of those. Nothing.
I enjoyed the talk with the reporter on the phone last week. Sadly this article is not issuing the main points. Still it is commenting some things we spoke about: for example Borneo in flames. (and no Mrs. Altherr, there will be no rain forests to bring animals back in a few years).
And the picture from my table shows 2 Gecko gecko and one Lanthanotus, that now lives in a zoo in Central America. It can´t have a better home.
A personal opinion: As long as we have no chance to stop this desaster in Borneo, I am happy to see such animals in hands of keepers who have the knowledge (and even more important the financial possibilities) to keep and breed such species. Otherwise its gone from this world soon...
And the report has some small mistakes: It surly is correct, that not all reptiles in the world are yet breeding. But, all the animals the report is about are succesfully breeding in captivity. And most not even in small amounts. Just to name Lanthanotus, Abronia (just check faunaclassifieds adds).
Or better name: Bearded Dragons (the most kept reptiles), Varanus acanthurus, and many other....why are they not listed in the report. Are they better because they are breed in F5-6-7 then animals beeing breed in F2-3? When was the moment those suddenly became OK to keep with their unclear background?
Then the article writes about juwelled geckos. I know there is a legend, that those never legally came out of New Zealand. I am not saying that these animals are not smuggled out there, but luckily they even started to bring back such animals to their home when discovered.
But: and this is a text from the New Zealand authorities when they asked for the CITES listing:
https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/16/prop/E-CoP16-Prop-26.pdf)
It clearly shows that those animals came legally to different countries in the world, and even in bigger amounts before beeing listed appendix 3. I think we all know that there are legal breeding lines in hands of very professional keepers with good breeding success to keep this lines alive.
So, what if a trader finds animals of this lines to trade with, proven background, legally declaired animals at authorities,..... Nothing bad about it.
And if I get my hands on a pair with perfect background I would not wait a second to buy them either for myself or for one of the many people asking me, if I can get them. And I would wait a day to declaire them with my authorities (because all my CITES animals, even the once I buy and resell within 5 Minutes, I declaire...). I would not throw away a good running, succesful bussines just by forgetting laws.
There is one statement in the article (guess who made it) about probems with Cites in Europe.
In Germany all animals of Cites the breeder has to declaire with the local authorities and name buyer to the authorities if he sells. The buyer has to declaire it has his/her authorities then. So all animals of Cites are trackable back to the breeder and even back to the start of the breeding stock.
But the problem is: This is in Germany. Other European countries only have this for CITES 1 animals. Thats a big problem.
For me as a trader I must find animals, that have a proven history up to the moment that those Cites animals legally entered Europe. So, if ( and I check that before buyng those animals) I see problems in the history (lets say missing documents of grand-grand-parents), I cannot buy them, as it would be hard to get export permits.
The grey line in the article:
We have two options with animals: Either there are legal or not. Are they legal, they can be traded. Are they illegal, not. Its easy as that.
Do I trade illegal animals: no. Do I trade legal animals: yes. In no word is the article saying something different. It is highlighting that we need better laws for such animals. And it is correct about this. But we have laws. And its laws that count. Would I like to see some animals more on the CITES list? For sure! But then those CITES laws should be followed the same way everywhere.
I would support many more species beeing listed. But I would support also a more easy way: Why are so many species (and this is not only reptiles but also plants and others) beeing smuggled? Give for example 10 or more Australian keepers of legal reptiles the allowance to export their offspring. That directly destroyes the smuggling of those species. And allows controls. And spoken bussineswise: A legal supply makes smuggling no longer reasonable. Make the same with other animals. Allow farming of some species and this animals will make sure there is a controlled number on the market. Even better, make rules like „you are allowed to breed, but only sell 50% and release 50% back in the wild“. Many ways are possible.
Thats my thoughts about this topic.
Again, offtopic to this thread. In the discussion sector it would surly be very interesting to talk about this topic in depth. But here it is off topic. Thats why here, in thread of Garrett and Mike, I will stick to the rules of faunaclassiefieds. I will not comment offtopic, I will not use name calling like we read here with every "smuggler" (without any prove of smuggling in my context), "princess",... I will not use hearsay (Lynns post 826, name the people), I will not put repetetive posts asking the same qustion over and over (to name a few 803, 805, 808, even with 813 highlighting this to you). Use the discussion forum for discussions about this report because thats where it belongs.
I know, Chris will ask 100+ questions now, but as I wrote. Offtopic. Use the discussion section. I will not answer one just to entertain you.
To be a little on topic:
Cause its about Mike and Garrett and the hardwickii: I cannot help in their situation, thats why I am not commenting this. If its between Garrett and me and how I would react if I see those animals will not come, I would discuss that with Garrett.
And again, even I wrote it already: I jumped in this deal beginning of this year, when Garrett (who I got to know beginning of the year!) offered me legal hardwickii from Pakistan. The turtle story I learnt about here. But it is a story happening years ago that is not affecting a legal approach of importing hardwickii. Did I support the turtle story, no. Did I like to learn about it, no. But I don´t have enough information to make a judgment. As we only know this story from the news reports posted here. Personally I think there must be a reason, why there is such a low fine in this case. Maybe Garrett didn´t know that the animals shipped to him did not come with proper paperwork? As I learnt in all this exports to the US (and that is totally different to Europe, where you have to ask for Import licence weeks ahead a shipment and need the export documents of the county of origin weeks before) is, that you receive the documents in the moment the shipments enters the US. Just a thought: Maybe he didn´t know there is no correct paperwork? I have no idea. And because I have no idea I do not judge it. But I do not support what happened.
Because you will ask: Garrett did not receive the Abronia, neither was he the one asking for them.
