If there were new CITES species quotas?

If CITES was to review their species list for export quotas for Madagascar chameleons are there any species that are not listed now that you think would make a new quota species list? If there is state why you think that. And should all the species that are still on the current list should still remain on the list (if not state why)?

I have considered Calumma brevicornis as it is known to inhabit forest margins and degraded secondary forest areas in some abundance and is an abundant and not threatened ecosystems. As well as Calumma nasuta and Calumma boettgeri as both these species in the regions where they are found are said to be prolific and occur in relatively very high densities for chameleons (and are currently somewhat protected in preserves).

As all my information comes from what I have read in papers and seen in video and I have not had the chance to survey conditions in Madagascar first hand correct my if I'm wrong. I think this is a subject that should be reviewed as if long term conservation efforts goals in Madagascar are accomplished this may be a subject matter chameleon keepers should be acquainted with and prepared to address if new CITES quotas are made.

Wild collected chameleons do not make good pets. Exporting chameleons should be done as a privilege of accomplished conservation goals. Other than quota species I mostly think the only other appropriate way to collect wild animals is with scientific permits with a high price (where the money goes back towards wild chameleon conservation). Similar to the export policies of South African Dwarf chameleons.

The one thing to be made aware of though is with the chameleon keeping hobby it makes many more people intimately aware of conservation problems abroad that normally with out the chameleon hobby would not have a clue about. Which in the long run provides more options for group who are attempting to conserve Madagascar's wild lands, plus due to many more people who become passionate about conserving these species and the forests where they are from, that leads to more accomplished conservation goals.

There is as well the aspect that Madagascar has been declared a World Heritage site. This puts Madagascar in the spotlight and distinguish Madagascar forests from other third world tropical forests. Meaning out of all the threatened tropical forests through out the world Madagascar has more of a chance, due to being in the world spotlight, of conserving its forests with a preserve and forestry system than other tropical rainforest in other third world countries. When this is done then considering the privilege of CITES OK species again makes sense. These techniques learned from Madagascar can then be used to conserve other tropical rainforests locate in other third world countries that are not in the immediate spot light of being a World Heritage site and contribute to forestry issues world wide.

A mistake made and nothing learned is a mistake to be made again.

Just a point to consider that with the current situation of only four quotas species existing in Madagascar. With Furcifer lateralis, being divided into three species not just one, the quotas of Furcifer lateralis most probably should be redone. Along with a good shot that other quotas species could be described as more than just one species as well. Such as Furcifer pardalis, oustaleti, and verrucosus. The new development of Madagascar universities, Madagascar government, CITES, and the IUCN Red List working towards keeping the most updated list of quotas species and quotas numbers seems to be ideal to handle the reclassification of chameleon species and make appropriate quotas numbers.

I can't believe nobody else has an opinion here to share!

I am honestly not well informed of the exact quota species, what the species are, how they are managed, and what bodies oversee and enforce this but I can tell you with near certainty it is likely inefficient, difficult to manage, and the quotas are more likely than not set by a dice roll than a preponderance of real population evidence.

My belief for species export quotas in general is that no species should have a 100% Ban on export and no species should have no regulation on export. Stopping export increases black market demand and unlimited export is dangerous.

The numbers can be very small 10 to 15 a year even for threatened species and those could (should) be earmarked only for experienced breeders throughout the world who intend to breed them in a professional breeding project and for monetary gain in the pet trade. This gives enforcement a boost and allows constant access for species in the pet trade which is a good thing for the wild populations.

I subscribe to the basic human tenant that it is easy to let something you don't know die, but once you know them all of the sudden it becomes more important to you to help it live. This is what Steve Irwin did and what the pet trade in general does when being exercised responsibly. These animals are ambassadors for their species and as much as people may not like it without good will from humans you better hope you don't live in a place attractive for development or farming.

I doubt I will ever be in a place to determine policy but the model of utilizing a few small exporters who export only to known skilled breeders would be a boon to import survival and enforcement of the black market animals.

If for example only 2 people in the US were licensed by the authority in Madagascar to accept certain wild caught species they would have a very good handle on the trade within the US and be able to identify black market imports and also have the motivation (monetary at worst) to ensure these animals were confiscated and the illegal importer would be prosecuted. All too often today it goes ignored because of 0 export quotas leaving no reason for anyone to request the law is enforced as it doesn't take from anyone's pockets.

Sorry to ramble on... I think on this subject a lot

Actually Madagascar Government is apparently actively working with CITES, Madagascar Universities and the IUCN Red List about upgrading the whole CITES Quota species export list and how many animals of species to be exported. Here's a link about the subject. I think this is a big step towards a more appropriate system of exporting CITES chameleons.

https://www.chameleonforums.com/madagascar-cites-legal-parsons-etc-exports-70258/

One thing about being a consumer is to always continue to request that animals in Madagascar farms are kept in the best conditions before shipping and when shipped over see they are shipped in the way that best suits their arrival in optimum conditions. That is something we as consumers can demand from chameleon importers and exporters. And we should.

The IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group (CSG; http://www.iucn.org/chameleonspecialists/) has been providing a lot of support to CITES and also working hard to increase the number of species evaluated by the IUCN Red List, in an effort to make sure the chameleon trade is sustainable. To that end the CSG has been providing expertise on a number of things, including taxonomic updates, trade evaluations, status assessments, etc.

Regarding current and future trade, there are a number of upcoming issues which will effect the captive chameleon trade. For instance, the CITES Standing Committee is meeting next month and the trade in Malagasy Calumma and Furcifer species is one of the topics they are going to evaluate. The Standing Committee has agreed to withdraw the recommendation to the Parties to not accept imports of Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, F. campani, and F. minor provided a scientifically backed sustainable quota for each is established. To that end, the CITES Animals Committee has recommended a zero quota for Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, and F. minor, and a quota of 250 for F. campani for 2012 and 2013. So, we should see F. campani exports in the next year or so if the Standing Committee agrees with the Animals Committee recommendation, but not any other species.

Chris

Chris Anderson said:

The IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group (CSG; http://www.iucn.org/chameleonspecialists/) has been providing a lot of support to CITES and also working hard to increase the number of species evaluated by the IUCN Red List, in an effort to make sure the chameleon trade is sustainable. To that end the CSG has been providing expertise on a number of things, including taxonomic updates, trade evaluations, status assessments, etc.

Regarding current and future trade, there are a number of upcoming issues which will effect the captive chameleon trade. For instance, the CITES Standing Committee is meeting next month and the trade in Malagasy Calumma and Furcifer species is one of the topics they are going to evaluate. The Standing Committee has agreed to withdraw the recommendation to the Parties to not accept imports of Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, F. campani, and F. minor provided a scientifically backed sustainable quota for each is established. To that end, the CITES Animals Committee has recommended a zero quota for Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, and F. minor, and a quota of 250 for F. campani for 2012 and 2013. So, we should see F. campani exports in the next year or so if the Standing Committee agrees with the Animals Committee recommendation, but not any other species.

Chris

Click to expand...

Chris

If I recall reading the document correctly Calumma crypticum was listed as one species being considered a possible new quota species as well. Although it did not make it as far as Furcifer campani to being considered a species for export for the 2012-2013 year.

Jeremy

Motherlode Chameleon said:

Chris

If I recall reading the document correctly Calumma crypticum was listed as one species being considered a possible new quota species as well. Although it did not make it as far as Furcifer campani to being considered a species for export for the 2012-2013 year.

Jeremy

Click to expand...

The Animals Committee also recommended a zero quota for Calumma crypticum.

Chris

Chris Anderson said:

The Animals Committee also recommended a zero quota for Calumma crypticum.

Chris

Click to expand...

Chris

OK Calumma crypticum was being considered along with Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, F. campani, and F. minor. While all of these species received a recommended 0 quotas export for all these species except Furcifer campani.

Jeremy

Motherlode Chameleon said:

Chris

OK Calumma crypticum was being considered along with Calumma brevicorne, C. gastrotaenia, C. nasutum, C. parsonii, Furcifer antimena, F. campani, and F. minor. While all of these species received a recommended 0 quotas export for all these species except Furcifer campani.

Jeremy

Click to expand...

Yes but C. crypticum was described after the 1995 recommendation to the Parties to suspend imports of those species so the Animals Committee recommendation of a zero quota for that species was a separate provision to those for the other species as C. crypticum wasn't included in the list of taxa the Standing Committee agreed to withdraw the recommendation for.

Chris

I'm really looking forward to seeing what this new system with the IUCN Red List, CITES, and all parties involved in Madagascar produces a decade from now. It seems there is a good chance that events that could be considered as progress could happen on multiple levels.

Motherlode Chameleon said:

I'm really looking forward to seeing what this new system with the IUCN Red List, CITES, and all parties involved in Madagascar produces a decade from now. It seems there is a good chance that events that could be considered as progress could happen on multiple levels.

Click to expand...

I am a little confused as to how this works but unless I am mistaken IUCN and Cites both have little control over habitat degradation and usage. While it is nice to limit exports I'm not sure there is evidence that this is a greater cause of population loss than habitat loss.

I just wish I could understand how this isn't a self defeating program.

Where can I find any useful data on how collecting for the animal trade under a quota effects a population and also how habitat loss effected the population.

I would like to believe we will see an improvement in the next decade but I'm not seeing evidence they are doing anything meaningful other than acting important and limiting exports. To me that is akin to a business having a raw materials issue deciding to just sell less rather than working to increase their supply chain.

DanSB said:

I am a little confused as to how this works but unless I am mistaken IUCN and Cites both have little control over habitat degradation and usage. While it is nice to limit exports I'm not sure there is evidence that this is a greater cause of population loss than habitat loss.

I just wish I could understand how this isn't a self defeating program.

Where can I find any useful data on how collecting for the animal trade under a quota effects a population and also how habitat loss effected the population.

I would like to believe we will see an improvement in the next decade but I'm not seeing evidence they are doing anything meaningful other than acting important and limiting exports. To me that is akin to a business having a raw materials issue deciding to just sell less rather than working to increase their supply chain.

Click to expand...

Dan

There are more than one paper that goes along with this system.

The idea is that if Madagascar has non threatened populations of chameleons and those populations habitat is not threatened and is conserved. Madagascar government can have students from Madagascar universities conduct studies to confirm chameleon and chameleon habitat is not threatened and is conserved to a point that could sustain yearly harvests of chameleons. These studies from Madagascar universities are presented to CITES and the IUCN and these conservation groups determine whether new quotas are appropriate or not. This being done it makes Madagascar forest an asset to restore and conserve forest that chameleons come from to the Malagasy people and government. For Madagascar this is a huge step towards conserving Madagascar forests (along with restorations), chameleon habitat, and seeing new quotas for export in the future.

All this coming from Madagascar a third world nation. Plus outside support from international conservation groups and the world profile of Madagascar being named a world heritage site I think is a good step to accomplishing conservation goals in this nation. It is an absolute upgrade from the rape and pillage chameleon harvesting that was going on 1995 and earlier.

Jeremy

Here's a couple other documents that go along with this thread.

http://darwin.defra.gov.uk/documents/17010/21977/17-010 AR2 - edited.pdf

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/26/wg/E26-WG07.pdf

It is official there is a new CITES Madagascar quota chameleon. Furcifer campani has been added as 250 WC quota animals are allowed to be shipped world wide.

One note to an environment that is not receiving much attention (compared to others) is Madagascar's highland humid forests. This is the home of one of the most well received and beloved chameleons, Calumma globifer. There are currently only two small reserves that are conserving and protecting this species in the wild (Reserve Ambohitantely and Anjozorobe-Angavo Corridor) and the rest of this species habitat is fragmented forests. This highland habitat absolutely requires more protection and conservation and once this habitat is conserved and restored it is possible to justify the privilege of seeing WC quotas of a great chameleon species from Madagascar, Calumma globifer. I encourage chameleons fans to support the conservation of this species and its habitat.

Motherlode Chameleon said:

It is official there is a new CITES Madagascar quota chameleon. Furcifer campani has been added as 250 WC quota animals are allowed to be shipped world wide.

One note to an environment that is not receiving much attention (compared to others) is Madagascar's highland humid forests. This is the home of one of the most well received and beloved chameleons, Calumma globifer. There are currently only two small reserves that are conserving and protecting this species in the wild (Reserve Ambohitantely and Anjozorobe-Angavo Corridor) and the rest of this species habitat is fragmented forests. This highland habitat absolutely requires more protection and conservation and once this habitat is conserved and restored it is possible to justify the privilege of seeing WC quotas of a great chameleon species from Madagascar, Calumma globifer. I encourage chameleons fans to support the conservation of this species and its habitat.

Click to expand...

This is exciting. Thanks for passing along the good news.

I have a another silly question. How would one support conservation on an island on the other side of the world in a place that has very little trade with the US and has an expanding population with limited resources?

Do you think the greater global chameleon community would be willing to donate funds to assist local conservation efforts? Does such an international NGO exist that would leverage the combined power of the tens of thousands very dedicated and knowledgeable Chameleon lovers around the globe? Perhaps even paying for some talented sustainable agriculture experts to hop on a plane and spend 6 months with the small farmers?

Remember to succeed in a conservation program you need to focus on local populations as simply drawing lines does little in the way of real conservation.

Interesting but educating the population is the only way you will be successful in conservation and then there is the government issue. Money talks and suddenly land that was a preserve is now clear cut even if that land was owned by somebody else. I've been reading about that very thing happening in South America.

Montium said:

Interesting but educating the population is the only way you will be successful in conservation and then there is the government issue. Money talks and suddenly land that was a preserve is now clear cut even if that land was owned by somebody else. I've been reading about that very thing happening in South America.

Click to expand...

The biggest detriment to any conservation effort is a hungry population. If you can't feed your family you don't care about any animal or beautiful vista all you see is the hunger in your child and you will do whatever you can to solve it. If a business comes in looking for lumber and offers enough food and shelter to the locals they will clear cut a preserve, sell the wood, and start an ineffective farm on the land. Note this is just one example.

Education is of course step 1. I fully agree. But the education should consist of sustainable agriculture and other ways to make a living and feed families in a sustainable way. Once people have clean food and water and an economy that supports basic medical care then you can start on educating more advanced sustainable business practices and the importance and pride of the beautiful wildlife in their home.

Quick fixes like establishing preserves are short term bandaid solutions to stop the bleeding. The human population must then be made to be successful enough that they have leisure time to enjoy the natural world and its value can be deeply appreciated.

European comission gave negative advise for importing Furcifer Campani.
I hope you guys in the US have more luck or the total quota will go to Azia