Madagascar and CITES (legal Parson's, etc. exports?)
- Thread starter Kent67
- Start date
Kent67
Retired Moderator
That's just how CITES words it. There was never a ban on those species; technically it was a "recommendation to suspend trade." That link is to a Notification to the Parties so what that is doing is telling member nations that it is ok to accept imports of those species (given they have an established quota, proper documents, etc.).
Motherlode Chameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
I have got high expectations for this new quota system (IUCN, CITES, Madagascar Universities, and Madagascar government). I hope they produce appropriate and accurate new quotas for export. Plus as a hobbyist (if these are made into new quotas) it is going great and long awaited opportunity to work with these species in captivity.
Thanks for posting Kent!
I would not mind seeing what the final quota numbers/estimates are going to be? One of the last documents posted was stating or around 250 animals per year. For Furcifer minor I'm hoping farm raised animals not WC.
Thanks for posting Kent!
I would not mind seeing what the final quota numbers/estimates are going to be? One of the last documents posted was stating or around 250 animals per year. For Furcifer minor I'm hoping farm raised animals not WC.
Last edited:
sdheli420
Avid Member
my next stop is parsons..been planning it for years.one thing i do know..i would not want a wc parsonii..ied rather still pay more and have a well aclimated parsons from chuck g...just a thought..
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
No so fast. This document was from before the Standing Committee meeting (the meeting started on the 23rd). Here is a document that is more specific about the recommendations the Standing Committee was deciding on at this meeting: http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/62/E62-27-02.pdf
As you can see, the recommendation from the Animal's committee was to withdraw the suspension recommendation on these species, but to implement a zero quota for them, with the exception of Furcifer campani, which they were recommending a quota of 250 for.
At the meeting of the Standing Committee last week, recommendations to suspend new trade in Trioceros feae from Equatorial Guinea and Chamaeleo africanus from Niger were made. Further, the aforementioned recommendations from the Animals Committee on Malagasy species was passed. This means that while many of the species originally included in the 1995 trade suspension are no longer suspended, they have a zero quota, with the exception of Furcifer campani, which has a quota of 250.
Chris
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
250 for Furcifer campani. Zero for the other species the suspension was lifted for.
Chris
Motherlode Chameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
I'm happy and all good
with just one new quotas species (after 17 years of waiting) of Furcifer campani at 250 animals a year.
Kent67
Retired Moderator
Whoops, I did not notice the dates. Any idea what the logic is behind lifting the trade suspension on these species only to give them zero quotas? From what I remember reading the results of the population studies indicated those species could all easily withstand collection pressure. Could this be a move to potentially add small quotas for the other species in time?
Motherlode Chameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
Allow me to elaborate even further. As well I'm glad that there are 0 quotas, for 6 out of the 7 species, instead of an all out ban of the 6 species. It seems with further conservation of species and habitat, along with further research and studies appears to be leading to new updated numbered quotas for the other species that are currently listed as zero quota species. I would call this conservation progress.
Last edited:
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Quotas are intended to be based on sound scientific estimates of sustainable offtake. Unfortunately the 1999 status assessment you're talking about really doesn't meet the criteria for a number of reasons. First, a lot has happened to the conservation status of the animals of Madagascar in the last 13 years. At the time the status assessment came out, there were other management issues that had not been satisfactorily met by the Malagasy management authorities. Also, this study really was was not specific or thorough enough at the species level to form a completely sound quota based off of (you would not get populations estimate ranges that varied by as much as >2 orders of magnitude for a single species if it was).
The quota for F. campani was established based on a thorough review performed by a Malagasy conservation group, which coincidentally the chair of the IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group worked for at the time. Now, by removing the suspension and issuing a zero quota, I suspect it is a step toward being able to modify the quotas in the future when solid reviews are conducted on those species and sustainable quotas can be formulated (we'll have to see what happens I guess). But, to the best of my knowledge, removal from the suspension list with a zero quota (for WC animals) allows for genuine CB specimens to be issued CITES documents and exported (although quotas for this still needs to be established).
Chris
Kent67
Retired Moderator
Awwww.....this is what I get for scanning instead of making the time to read thoroughly. I did not realize most of the data used for the species profiles and table in AC24 Doc 7.2 was from Brady and Griffiths. As I scanned it I saw mention of the Randrianantoandro and Karsten surveys, assumed they were more comprehensive than 5 species, and therefore thought new data existed for the 7 species recently withdrawn from the trade suspension. That's why it didn't make sense to me that the AC would recommend zero quotas for everything but campani. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to reading about chameleons once my thesis is done. Thanks, Chris!
Motherlode Chameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
That is a neat and intriguing deal that the zero quotas allows true captive bred animals to be exported. I'm assuming that is what is being called farmed animals. This new development definitely has got a lot more going for it than the a ban. Although with how unmanaged chameleon exports were going in the early 90's was necessary.
I would not assume that ranching chameleons would not count as cb though. As wild gravid females being captured allowed to lay their eggs (possibly a quota amount of eggs collected). Then fed and hydrated and the females are allowed to rejoin the wild breeding population. This would not be technically captive breeding however one upside is that adult (with Parsonii considered living up to 20 years) breeding animals would not be permanently removed from the wild population and increase fecundity of wild caught (Parsonii) since the adults were not removed and would not take 2-3 years to be replaced by juveniles.
Jeremy A. Rich
Meow Kitty
New Member
i care also but, truthfully im not ready for these massive dinosaurs even if they did become cheaper and easyier to get.
chameleonkev
New Member
Cheaper and Easyier to get hmmm, I don't think it would be a good thing, take me for instance I have been looking at these a while and have started to do my research on this beautiful species in the hope to one day own a pair, I had the chance to get my hands on some parsons not to long ago but the only thing that stoped me was the space issue noing I couldn't give them the prefect home at the moment but I think for some people this wouldn't put them of, it's only the price that keeps people away from parsons and if that drops I think there will be a lot of parsons out there that arnt getting the care they require so to be Honest I like things as they are
Meow Kitty
New Member
even after looking at the price i researched them they are a high maintenance animal, with a immense amount of space and humidity which would be pretty impossible for me in the desert. besides the price is probly what hypes them up so much
chameleonkev
New Member
Well your sensible like me an wouldn't have the animal unless you can give them perfect care but look at some of the fools that have chams, they don't look after them very well at all in some cases and it would be a shame for these to get into the wrong hands but I do think the price is a fair price, in my opinion they are the most stunning of all chameleons and is a small price to get such a interesting species
Benton1576
New Member
I totally agree! If the pricing was lower, it would encourage those that dont know to "give it a go" resulting in a lot of fatalities with this species. As it stands, the only people willing to spend the amount of money that these cost are the ones that can provide them with everything they need so as not to kill them.
Similar threads
