|
RE: Thanks Karl.
|
Reply
|
|
by stopgetinpopped on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The C unicolor is not CITES listed. They are a species of environmental concern as their population is in grave danger due to loss of habitat...the reason they are so difficult to come by is they are part of an SSP with AZA, thus making it very difficult to aquire even for some zoo's. They are also regulated by the local govt. thus making it that much more difficult for the private sector to come by.
|
| |
|
RE: Thanks Karl.
|
Reply
|
|
by Snakeman1982 on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you look at Manny Rubio's book "Rattlesnakes:Portrait of a Predator" he states, "The Aruba Island rattlesnake, Crotalus unicolor, is protected by that island's government and also is listed as an internationally endangered species with the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)".
But I just got off the CITES website (www.cites.gov) and the snake isn't listed.
Not that CITES helps that much anyway. They can list species all they want but in foreign countries, it is up to those governments to catch and prosecute those in illegal trade, which doesn't happen much.
I couldn't find anything in several other books.
I guess they aren't considered endangered. Pretty disappointing that they aren't better protected though I am glad it is difficult for zoos and people to obtain them.
Robert
|
| |
|
However, if it is part of C. durissus....
|
Reply
|
|
by CAISSACA on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
... then it will automatically be CITES listed, as C. durissus is on Appendix 2.
Since the part of the CITES server that gives distributions is not working at the moment, I can't check whether Aruba (Netherlands Antilles) is listed as part of the range of C. durissus (and unicolor thus implicitly CITES-listed ) or not.
This could lead to some interesting customs office or courtroom discussions.
In the international IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, unicolor is listed (as a full species) as Critically Endangered, the only rattelr to be listed at all. (http://www.redlist.org)
Cheers,
WW
|
| |
|
RE: Correction:
|
Reply
|
|
by MattHarris on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does IUCN status actually afford any legal protection? Which would take precendence, Aruba law, then US law?
I gather IUCN is just a classification, much as CITES sets some restrictions for certain species, but does not completely ban international trade. C. durissus is a good example (or is it C. simus??) Sorry...LOL!
|
| |
|
RE: Correction:
|
Reply
|
|
by CAISSACA on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IUCN status has no international legal implications, it is simply an assessment of the status of the species.
CITES listing does impose at the very least a reporting burden on signatory states, and requires importing states to ascertain that the exporting state provided a valid licence. Of course, if the exporting state is willing to export in an unsustainable manner, then that's just too bad.
The C. durissus vs. C. simus question is a nice example of how taxonomy and taxonomic changes can impact on regulation. Again I can imagine some interesting discussions with customs. When Naja naja was split, I certainly heard of people being arrested for transporting Naja kaouthia across a border, when only Naja naja was listed in CITES, with ensuing discussion of what was covered, which taxonomy was right, and whether the labelling of the snakes as Naja kaouthia was bona fide or an attempt to evade regulation.
Precedent suggests that CITES authorities take the broad view of considering any splinters to be listed if the species originally listed is later found to comprise multiple species. So, for instance, all Asiatic Naja are CITES listed now, because they were split off Naja naja, which was listed originally.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
|
| |
|
Some examples, FYI.
|
Reply
|
|
by MattHarris on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Considering, that many USFW inspectors are not completely up to snuff on taxonomy AND using outdated field guides, the following species were confused a couple weeks ago in a shipment I received:
Bothriechis lateralis and B. nigroviridis, weren't, at first, ID'd because the field guide they were using, STILL listed them as Bothrops. Good grief!
Also, the Bothrops colombiensis, has generally been liste d as Bothrops asper on permits to avoid any questioning by inspectors.
C. durissus has never been a problem, at least with captive animals from Costa Rica, even though CR does not even issue Certificates of Origin. They merely put a statement of captive origin on their export permits, and thus that serves the same intent (though its taken several explanations to clarify this with USFW, as well as emails from Costa Rica's CITES authority).
MCH
www.matabuey.com
|
| |
|
RE: Some examples, FYI.
|
Reply
|
|
by CAISSACA on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The inspectors... yeah, not at all unusual. I remember gettign misleading information on whetehr I needed permits for soem C. American species (Porthidium nasutum, I think) because I used up-to-date nomenclature, whereas the UK CITES office was decades behind. I would have been well p*ssed off if I had been arrested when I made all the relevant enquiries....
Oh, and the C. durissus distribution info is now available on the CITES website, and does not include the Netherlands Antilles, so unicolor is indeed unlisted.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
