ALERT:. PLEASE BE CAREFUL IF SOMEONE CALLS YOU AND CLAIMS TO BE FROM IRS, ELECTRIC COMPANY OR WHATEVER THEIR REASON MIGHT BE. LOOK AT THIS LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14621

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041
with the holidays coming up, the return percentage is higher.

CITES confuses me

Exotic legal issues, bans, laws, regulations, Animal Rights discussions etc.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

CITES confuses me

Postby Nìmwey » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:57 am

What's really up with CITES in exotic mammals? Before I know I asked about tigers and jaguars, and got the answer that because tigers are crossed and considered "generic", they are exempt, while if you wanted a pure tiger, it would be different. Easy enough.
I know the EU has different (or extra?) regulations on CITES.

But I don't understand this, quotes from a thread so old (about bobcats) I won't bother reviving it, and since it was about a different topic anyway:
Alynn wrote:I don't think any private individual can own them seeing as they are Endangered and listed in CITES Appendix I.

TamanduaGirl wrote:They would need the DWAL (assuming England) so it could be legal BUT you can't import them for pets because of CITES. Pretty much only a big zoo could get CITES animals.

I've owned CITES species. Two of them (appendix I, or A-listed). One was a lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo that I was GIVEN because he had no ring, no papers, and no proof of legality, so the only legal way to transfer ownership was to have no money involved. The second was a scarlet macaw I bought legally, with CITES papers. I know that's how it works here, if you buy a CITES appendix I parrot, like one of the two species I had, or a Goffin's cockatoo, or a Moluccan cockatoo (all very common in the states, the Goffin's and lesser sulphur are common in Sweden as well, the scarlet and Moluccan, less so).

You need a permit to buy, sell, show, or do absolutely anything commercial with them. Traveling abroad is difficult but not impossible. I don't know what you know or if you ever talk about CITES II species, but I have them too and you can do pretty much anything without a problem, except I guess if you would import/export them.

So what is this, you're saying that any endangered, any CITES I species is pretty much impossible to keep?
CITES can't be treating mammals differently from birds, can they? Appendix I is about as endangered as it gets, is it not?
So why can I have CITES I parrots here with just a paper? And why can pet stores in the US sell these birds (the four species I mentioned are super common over there) in droves, and I've NEVER heard a single soul talk about CITES on American parrot forums (I've wondered about that for years)?
But you say CITES animals can't be owned by ANYONE except big zoos?

I'm ultra-confused.
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7970
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby Ash » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:05 pm

CITES only controls importation/exportation.

So animals that are already in a country can be owned no problem (like your parrots). The problem Alynn is mentioning, is that here in the US many CITES I species are not allowed to be imported EXCEPT if an accredited zoo is doing it. So if there's a CITES animal someone wants in the US, exceptions are not going to be made for the private sector to have it imported.

In the US we also happen to have the ESA (Endangered Species Act). Most CITES I animals are listed on the ESA, which makes interstate transfer impossible for the private individual. So even if a private individual WERE able to import a CITES I animal (not possible here in US), it would mean it couldn't leave the state it was imported to--which limits who can possess these animals.

I imagine other countries might have an easier time if they didn't have laws prohibiting the transfer of endangered species within the country's borders.

CITES is protecting wild-caught parrots, not captive-born ones. CITES is only import/export so it doesn't affect the animals once they're in the states, and all the animals here in the US are captive-born now anyway.

I feel like I'm talking in circles, lol, but I hope that makes sense. If you have other questions, feel free to ask.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10448
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby TamanduaGirl » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:29 pm

CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species (cites I) except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (see Article III), for instance for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it is authorized by the granting of both an import permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Article VII of the Convention provides for a number of exemptions to this general prohibition.


Prohibits commercial import, so importing to sell as pets, importing to keep as a pet because someone somewhere sold it to you, etc is commercial. Also note it says cases where a permit is granted are exceptional(rare). I suppose theoretically if you could find someone to give it to you for free you could get a permit to import it but I know people have been busted for doing this but were found to have gifts/donations having traded hands so were actually compensated, making it commercial. You'd best never have traded/given anything else with the person.
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby Nìmwey » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:05 pm

And what are your thought on the ESA? I know pretty much nothing about it, but I know sometimes regulations intended to help species, actually does the opposite by in effect making captive breeding efforts much more difficult.

Is a repeal being discussed, or is that media sensationalism?
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10448
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:22 pm

It's been mentioned but I don't know how serious they are. They are concentrating on other things. They want a repeal to benefit ranchers and other businesses or drastic changes like limits. I don't think it needs repealed but it sure could use a change. Biggest change I would make is remove exotic species from it. CITES covers that and yes having them on the ESA hinders captive pools. Technically native, but before ocelots were added to the ESA they were common exotic cats pets. So a large percent of the captive population of ocelots was wiped out by being "protected". Imagine how many cheetahs there would be if legal to have privately.

It makes sense to cover endangered natives but it still seems if you could verify it was captive born it should be okay to have them. I guess that's kind of the point of USDI as it's stricter so easier to track than USDA but it is currently prohibitive against pet keepers and breeders.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7970
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby Ash » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:51 pm

People forget that what saved American Alligators from extinction was the private sector. The farming community. Lots of people say it was the ESA that did it, but it wasn't.

I'm cool with the ESA protecting native species, but exotic should be off the list completely. I feel the ESA started out as a good thing but has since become a political tool to bad the ownership of a number of species. It doesn't need to be done away with, but I'd like to see a huge change go into effect that benefits private owners.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, salamander, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Onyx
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Louisiana, USA

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby Onyx » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:35 pm

That's why I never understood the "there are more tigers in private homes than in the wild!" argument.... Isn't that sorta good? That means that although they are dying out in the wild, we won't have to worry about them going completely extinct.

We need to protect endangered species but they are doing it wrong. Zoos and aquariums are great and all but there is only so much they can do.
    Owner of a ball python, leopard gecko, two betta fish, and two cats.

    Dream Pets: Caracal, rusty-spotted genet, gray smooth hound shark, black tree
    monitor, dragon moray, doberman, Yakut laika, and Brazilian black tarantula.
naja-naja
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:34 pm

Re: CITES confuses me

Postby naja-naja » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:07 pm

CITES Appendix 1 animals are illegal to trade commercially, unless they are chipped and accompanied by an A10 form stating they are captive bred. In that case they are treated as Appendix 2 species. This is no matter if the animal is a mammal, bird or reptile.
Most of the legal issues surrounding CITES animals in the US comes from ESA or other legislation, rather than CITES itself.
1.4 burmese pythons
0.1 indian pythons
0.1 boa constrictors
1.1 macklott's pythons
1.2 reticulated pythons
0.1 blue tegu

Return to “Laws & LEGAL ISSUES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest