Minor chameleons

[rsepiphyte]

Just saw an advertisement for them on kingsnake.com. My interest is peaked! Did anyone on this forum get some? They are my dream chameleons but for me the price tag was way beyond my reach. I truely hope we can have these gems available here in the United states again. Congratulations to those who are getting them. Please keep us posted. Ruth

 

[Sanababit]

Hi, lovevly animals but just to darn expensive, i saw them beign offered too on this site, under chameleons for sale

Sana

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Furcifer minor is a great species that does well in captivity. However they are listed openly as an IUCN Red List Endangered species. I would be surprised if that shipment is not confiscated when it makes it to the USA.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Sanababit]

Furcifer minor is a great species that does well in captivity. However they are listed openly as an IUCN Red List Endangered species. I would be surprised if that shipment is not confiscated when it makes it to the USA.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

Courious, even captive bred?

Sana

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Courious, even captive bred?

Sana

I would be surprised if Fish and Game did not confiscate even this shipment. Furcifer minor were only bred to the F4 generation in the USA (until ~1999) and to say a paper trail from before 1995 for an endangered species that only live 3-5 years made it to 2014 is nonsense.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Chris Anderson]

Hi all,

This proposed shipment of Furcifer minor has received a great deal of attention, both good and bad. One thing that has been pervasive in these responses, however, is that much of this attention has been based on raw emotion and has tended to be light on (and often completely lacking) evidence to back up statements that are being represented as fact.

As mentioned already on this thread, F. minor was one of many that have not been exported legally from Madagascar since 1995. This is due to a CITES Notification to the Parties (Notification 833: http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/notif/1995/833.txt), which recommended that all Parties suspend imports of all Chamaeleo (now Calumma and Furcifer) spp. (except Chamaeleo (F.) lateralis, C. (F.) oustaleti, C. (F.) pardalis and C. (F.) verrucosus) from Madagascar. This recommendation stemmed from a CITES Review of Significant Trade, where the Malagasy Management Authority (MA) failed to sufficiently respond to recommendations of the Animals Committee. This recommendation, however, has now been withdrawn by CITES due to the approval by the Animals Committee of conservative annual export quotas established by Madagascar. In the case of F. minor, that quota is zero (http://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/quotas/2014/ExportQuotas2014.pdf). What this means is that F. minor has not been legally exported from Madagascar since 1995 and still can not be legally exported from Madagascar.

Further, as has been stated already, F. minor has been assessed as Endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8766/0). This assessment is based on an extent of occurrence for this species estimated to be less than 5000 km² (3,900 km²), with estimates indicating severely fragmented habitat and a continuing decline of the area, extent and/or quality of habitat. The latter refers to the native Tapia forest habitat of this species, which is heavily logged for charcoal, farm land and mining land, and has become heavily fragmented by savanna grassland. The assessment does state that this species is also found in coffee plantations, orchards, and even in villages (which I can personally confirm: http://www.chameleonnews.com/02MayAndersonMinorField.html) and suggests that "further research is needed to clarify whether the resulting farmland represents suitable habitat for this lizard".

There is no question that the animals that are proposed to be imported in this shipment were hatched in Europe. The issue and concern that has been expressed, however, is whether these bloodlines are bonafide pre-1995 ban lines, or if they are the result of smuggled animals being subsequently bred in captivity. In the latter case, the progeny are laundered by representing them as direct decedents of these legally imported pre-ban specimens so that CITES documents will be issued. The laundering of smuggled chameleons and their offspring in order to obtain CITES export permits is quite common in SE Asia and countries like the Ukraine, and animals stemming from these situations are widely available for purchase in Europe. The issuance of CITES permits by EU CITES MAs for laundered chameleons, however, has never been a notable issue as far as I am aware. The CITES MAs responsible for issuing CITES permits in the EU have a reputation for being much more thorough than those of countries where this is a known issue, which is why few of these species have ever been issued export permits from EU CITES MAs.

In regard to this shipment in particular, in order to receive these permits, the CITES MA that issued them underwent an extensive review of the situation. Jurgen (the exporter of this shipment) had to provide documentation tracing ownership of F. minor bloodlines back to a legal pre-1995 importation, provide evidence and documentation of multi-generation breeding consistent with the time lapsed since that original import, and allow site visits to inspect his animals, eggs, neonates, etc. My understanding is that this was done to the satisfaction of the EU CITES MA, which is why they decided to issue him CITES export permits for these animals.

Now, speculation has been made in this thread and elsewhere as to whether the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS) will allow this shipment into the US. In particular, emphasis has been made on the Endangered status of this species, and that US FWS is extremely strict about importing endangered species (example: https://www.facebook.com/groups/184761882017/10152983625317018/). Its important to note, however, that while F. minor is assessed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, this is not to be confused with a classification of Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which they are not. The US FWS is very strict on the importation of ESA listed species, however there are no US laws restricting trade in any species on the basis of IUCN Red List listing level. Since F. minor is a CITES listed species, however, proper CITES documents are still necessary to import this species into the US.

The US FWS reviews the paperwork and contents of all shipments of CITES species being imported into the US prior to clearing the shipment at the port of entry. This is done to not only track and monitor trade in these species, but also to ensure that everything is in order. The confiscation of shipments at this point due to inconsistencies or issues with associated CITES documents is not unheard of. The US FWS, however, is bound to obey and enforce US laws and international laws that the US is a signatory to. As a result, so long as they are able to verify with the EU CITES MA that the permits are legitimate (i.e. actually issued by that authority) and all remaining procedures are appropriately followed, the US FWS would likely be obligated to approve and clear this shipment. By all indications, legally the US FWS would need to have evidence in their possession proving that the permits were obtained under false pretenses, or be able to show some other violation of proper import/export procedures, in order to confiscate or deny the shipment.

Concern over the authenticity of the documentation and evidence provided in the process of the CITES MA's review leading up to the issuance of the CITES export permit is understandable given the trade history of this species. In the absence of actual evidence that this supporting information was falsified, however, the CITES documents appear to be legitimate and thus should result in a legal importation as long as remaining importation procedures are followed appropriately. Thus, unless actual evidence to the contrary can be provided, all statements regarding these animals or their parents being of illegal origin are simply unsubstantiated conjecture.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Hi all,

This proposed shipment of Furcifer minor has received a great deal of attention, both good and bad. One thing that has been pervasive in these responses, however, is that much of this attention has been based on raw emotion and has tended to be light on (and often completely lacking) evidence to back up statements that are being represented as fact.

As mentioned already on this thread, F. minor was one of many that have not been exported legally from Madagascar since 1995. This is due to a CITES Notification to the Parties (Notification 833: http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/notif/1995/833.txt), which recommended that all Parties suspend imports of all Chamaeleo (now Calumma and Furcifer) spp. (except Chamaeleo (F.) lateralis, C. (F.) oustaleti, C. (F.) pardalis and C. (F.) verrucosus) from Madagascar. This recommendation stemmed from a CITES Review of Significant Trade, where the Malagasy Management Authority (MA) failed to sufficiently respond to recommendations of the Animals Committee. This recommendation, however, has now been withdrawn by CITES due to the approval by the Animals Committee of conservative annual export quotas established by Madagascar. In the case of F. minor, that quota is zero (http://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/quotas/2014/ExportQuotas2014.pdf). What this means is that F. minor has not been legally exported from Madagascar since 1995 and still can not be legally exported from Madagascar.

Further, as has been stated already, F. minor has been assessed as Endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8766/0). This assessment is based on an extent of occurrence for this species estimated to be less than 5000 km² (3,900 km²), with estimates indicating severely fragmented habitat and a continuing decline of the area, extent and/or quality of habitat. The latter refers to the native Tapia forest habitat of this species, which is heavily logged for charcoal, farm land and mining land, and has become heavily fragmented by savanna grassland. The assessment does state that this species is also found in coffee plantations, orchards, and even in villages (which I can personally confirm: http://www.chameleonnews.com/02MayAndersonMinorField.html) and suggests that "further research is needed to clarify whether the resulting farmland represents suitable habitat for this lizard".

There is no question that the animals that are proposed to be imported in this shipment were hatched in Europe. The issue and concern that has been expressed, however, is whether these bloodlines are bonafide pre-1995 ban lines, or if they are the result of smuggled animals being subsequently bred in captivity. In the latter case, the progeny are laundered by representing them as direct decedents of these legally imported pre-ban specimens so that CITES documents will be issued. The laundering of smuggled chameleons and their offspring in order to obtain CITES export permits is quite common in SE Asia and countries like the Ukraine, and animals stemming from these situations are widely available for purchase in Europe. The issuance of CITES permits by EU CITES MAs for laundered chameleons, however, has never been a notable issue as far as I am aware. The CITES MAs responsible for issuing CITES permits in the EU have a reputation for being much more thorough than those of countries where this is a known issue, which is why few of these species have ever been issued export permits from EU CITES MAs.

In regard to this shipment in particular, in order to receive these permits, the CITES MA that issued them underwent an extensive review of the situation. Jurgen (the exporter of this shipment) had to provide documentation tracing ownership of F. minor bloodlines back to a legal pre-1995 importation, provide evidence and documentation of multi-generation breeding consistent with the time lapsed since that original import, and allow site visits to inspect his animals, eggs, neonates, etc. My understanding is that this was done to the satisfaction of the EU CITES MA, which is why they decided to issue him CITES export permits for these animals.

Now, speculation has been made in this thread and elsewhere as to whether the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS) will allow this shipment into the US. In particular, emphasis has been made on the Endangered status of this species, and that US FWS is extremely strict about importing endangered species (example: https://www.facebook.com/groups/184761882017/10152983625317018/). Its important to note, however, that while F. minor is assessed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, this is not to be confused with a classification of Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which they are not. The US FWS is very strict on the importation of ESA listed species, however there are no US laws restricting trade in any species on the basis of IUCN Red List listing level. Since F. minor is a CITES listed species, however, proper CITES documents are still necessary to import this species into the US.

The US FWS reviews the paperwork and contents of all shipments of CITES species being imported into the US prior to clearing the shipment at the port of entry. This is done to not only track and monitor trade in these species, but also to ensure that everything is in order. The confiscation of shipments at this point due to inconsistencies or issues with associated CITES documents is not unheard of. The US FWS, however, is bound to obey and enforce US laws and international laws that the US is a signatory to. As a result, so long as they are able to verify with the EU CITES MA that the permits are legitimate (i.e. actually issued by that authority) and all remaining procedures are appropriately followed, the US FWS would likely be obligated to approve and clear this shipment. By all indications, legally the US FWS would need to have evidence in their possession proving that the permits were obtained under false pretenses, or be able to show some other violation of proper import/export procedures, in order to confiscate or deny the shipment.

Concern over the authenticity of the documentation and evidence provided in the process of the CITES MA's review leading up to the issuance of the CITES export permit is understandable given the trade history of this species. In the absence of actual evidence that this supporting information was falsified, however, the CITES documents appear to be legitimate and thus should result in a legal importation as long as remaining importation procedures are followed appropriately. Thus, unless actual evidence to the contrary can be provided, all statements regarding these animals or their parents being of illegal origin are simply unsubstantiated conjecture.

Chris

Chris

I am not convinced no matter how much I want to keep Fucifer minor in captivity. Furcifer minor has been shown not to breed past F3-F4 in captivity and only live for 3-5 years and those in the USA died out starting at around 1995 to 1999. There was at least the possibility with Calumma parsonii parsonii that the could be F2 generation as they are though to live 15 to 20 years, Furcifer minor is not even close. I would rather watch CITES justify some farmed bred Furcifer minor from Madagascar legally while restorations are going on than to have falsified documents to be sold to the US or world chameleon keeping community. I am not sold or convinced about this and think this shipment has got a good chance of being take down. This shipment needs CITES I documents and shipment like this have been taken down before even when CITES paper seem to be in order. If this shipment makes it to the USA and is not taken down I am going to be surprised!

http://www.chameleonnews.com/02MayKalischImport.html

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Chris Anderson]

Chris

I am not convinced no matter how much I want to keep Fucifer minor in captivity. Furcifer minor has been shown not to breed past F3-F4 in captivity and only live for 3-5 years and those in the USA died out starting at around 1995 to 1999. There was at least the possibility with Calumma parsonii parsonii that the could be F2 generation as they are though to live 15 to 20 years, Furcifer minor is not even close. I would rather watch CITES justify some farmed bred Furcifer minor from Madagascar legally while restorations are going on than to have falsified documents to be sold to the US or world chameleon keeping community. I am not sold or convinced about this and think this shipment has got a good chance of being take down. This shipment needs CITES I documents and shipment like this have been taken down before even when CITES paper seem to be in order. If this shipment makes it to the USA and is not taken down I am going to be surprised!

http://www.chameleonnews.com/02MayKalischImport.html

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

Great example of representing statements as facts rather than what they are, an emotional response without evidence to support it. Not being convinced about whether or not the animals in question are truly direct decedents of pre-ban imports is fine, but your post is full of complete factual inaccuracies.

First, just because a species was only successfully bred to F4 in one case does not mean that the species "has been shown not to breed past F3-F4 in captivity". By that logic, there are a lot of species that have been shown not to breed past F1 in captivity, and some that have been shown not to breed in captivity at all!

Further, while concern over the authenticity of the documentation and evidence provided in the process of the CITES MA's review leading up to the issuance of the CITES export permit is understandable, the CITES documents themselves are not falsified as far as I can tell. This would be something confirmed by US FWS when they contact the issuing CITES MA to verify that they issued the permits. There is a difference between falsified CITES documents and CITES documents being issued under false pretenses.

Additionally, Furcifer minor is a CITES Appendix II species, just like Chamaeleo calyptratus. They do not need CITES Appendix I documents to be imported. The only chameleon species listed on CITES Appendix I is Brookesia perarmata.

Finally, despite the fact that I explained this to you in detail last week, you have once again missed a crucial aspect of why the shipment you linked to in your last post was confiscated that explains why this is not the same situation. Yes, that shipment had CITES documents issued by the Malagasy CITES authority. The issue with it, however, was that the CITES Notification to the Parties that ended trade in these species in 1995 (Notification 833) did not specify WC/CB/R/F, etc., and thus ALL export of these species from Madagascar was suspended with that recommendation. The Malagasy CITES Management authority issued permits for that shipment and reported those animals as ranched, which they thought got around that recommendation. As a result, however, the CITES documents were in violation of that recommendation and the shipment was confiscated by US FWS. Given that the animals in this proposed shipment are not originating in Madagascar (they were born in Europe), however, neither the aforementioned recommendation (even had it not been withdrawn), nor the annual export quota of zero from Madagascar, are relevant. Thus, the scenario with the previous shipment is not similar, as you suggest.

Chris

 

[CarlC]

Furcifer minor were only bred to the F4 generation in the USA (until ~1999) and to say a paper trail from before 1995 for an endangered species that only live 3-5 years made it to 2014 is nonsense.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

Im curious, who bred them to F4 in the US?

Carl

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Great example of representing statements as facts rather than what they are, an emotional response without evidence to support it. Not being convinced about whether or not the animals in question are truly direct decedents of pre-ban imports is fine, but your post is full of complete factual inaccuracies.

First, just because a species was only successfully bred to F4 in one case does not mean that the species "has been shown not to breed past F3-F4 in captivity". By that logic, there are a lot of species that have been shown not to breed past F1 in captivity, and some that have been shown not to breed in captivity at all!

Sorry to disappoint you however that is some of the only first hand knowledge I have got of Furcifer minor and it is only documented off the top of my head and not in photo documentation or written documentation as I would prefer. I know it is not the most dependable information however it is the only first hand experience I have got that is more than most here in the States. From that experience that has given me evidence the opinion that these Furcifer minors even though I want to keep the species in the USA are most probably falsified CITES paperwork species.

Further, while concern over the authenticity of the documentation and evidence provided in the process of the CITES MA's review leading up to the issuance of the CITES export permit is understandable, the CITES documents themselves are not falsified as far as I can tell. This would be something confirmed by US FWS when they contact the issuing CITES MA to verify that they issued the permits. There is a difference between falsified CITES documents and CITES documents being issued under false pretenses.

Additionally, Furcifer minor is a CITES Appendix II species, just like Chamaeleo calyptratus. They do not need CITES Appendix I documents to be imported. The only chameleon species listed on CITES Appendix I is Brookesia perarmata.

Finally, despite the fact that I explained this to you in detail last week, you have once again missed a crucial aspect of why the shipment you linked to in your last post was confiscated that explains why this is not the same situation. Yes, that shipment had CITES documents issued by the Malagasy CITES authority. The issue with it, however, was that the CITES Notification to the Parties that ended trade in these species in 1995 (Notification 833) did not specify WC/CB/R/F, etc., and thus ALL export of these species from Madagascar was suspended with that recommendation. The Malagasy CITES Management authority issued permits for that shipment and reported those animals as ranched, which they thought got around that recommendation. As a result, however, the CITES documents were in violation of that recommendation and the shipment was confiscated by US FWS. Given that the animals in this proposed shipment are not originating in Madagascar (they were born in Europe), however, neither the aforementioned recommendation (even had it not been withdrawn), nor the annual export quota of zero from Madagascar, are relevant. Thus, the scenario with the previous shipment is not similar, as you suggest.

Chris

My statement of the top of my head about CITES I paperwork was not accurate I recall Brookesia peremata being listed as the only CITES I species. However the last shipment was during 2002 that you posted the Ken Kalish's article about that was around before the IUCN Red List had an Endangered species list (as you stated) had CITES paperwork and they were not even considered endangered species then (they were considered highly threatened though) and the shipment was confiscated by Fish and Game. With how endangered species ar revered in the USA I think this shipment has got the same prospects of being confiscated in the same way! I maybe surprised and this shipment may go through. However I think I am correct. My statements are not based on emotion they are base on what I think! When the shipment arrives we shall see!

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Im curious, who bred them to F4 in the US?

Carl

Carl

It is an old recollection from a breeder in the New York area who posted for sale Furcifer minors, if I recall correctly on the classified adds for Reptiles Magazine. I talked with him bout a half dozen times and he said he bred them to F3 or F4 before they stopped breeding for him and they said they did great in captivity. I had the opportunity to buy a pair once at the Cow Palace Show in the California Bay Area other than from him. Sorry cannot recall his name of the top of my head it has been over 15 years ago he might be in my phone book though.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[CarlC]

His name was Bob. He only produced a single clutch of cb's. I visited his place when I got a pair from him. His adult pair died long before the eggs hatched.

Carl

 

[Kent67]

....Bob Scheben?

 

[CarlC]

....Bob Scheben?

Yes.

Carl

 

[Chris Anderson]

Sorry to disappoint you however that is some of the only first hand knowledge I have got of Furcifer minor and it is only documented off the top of my head and not in photo documentation or written documentation as I would prefer. I know it is not the most dependable information however it is the only first hand experience I have got that is more than most here in the States. From that experience that has given me evidence the opinion that these Furcifer minors even though I want to keep the species in the USA are most probably falsified CITES paperwork species.

Your "first hand knowledge"/"first hand experience" is from never having actually worked with this species yourself, and has led you to make the statement that "Furcifer minor has been shown not to breed past F3-F4 in captivity"... Remember what I was saying about being "light on (and often completely lacking) evidence to back up statements that are being represented as fact"?

My statement of the top of my head about CITES I paperwork was not accurate I recall Brookesia peremata being listed as the only CITES I species. However the last shipment was during 2002 that you posted the Ken Kalish's article about that was around before the IUCN Red List had an Endangered species list (as you stated) had CITES paperwork and they were not even considered endangered species then (they were considered highly threatened though) and the shipment was confiscated by Fish and Game. With how endangered species ar revered in the USA I think this shipment has got the same prospects of being confiscated in the same way! I maybe surprised and this shipment may go through. However I think I am correct. My statements are not based on emotion they are base on what I think! When the shipment arrives we shall see!

Yes, that shipment was confiscated before they were listed as an Endangered species on the IUCN Red List. As outlined before, however, they were confiscated because of the CITES Notification to the Parties recommending that parties suspend import of those species from Madagascar. As has also been outlined, the animals in this new proposed shipment are not originating in Madagascar, so the cause of this previous confiscation is not relevant to this shipment. Further, as has also been outlined, there are no US laws restricting the trade in species of any IUCN Red List level, only ESA, which F. minor is not listed under. Finally, as has also been outlined, the US FWS is bound to uphold and obey the law, and in the absence of evidence of a violation of those laws, they can't just willy nilly deny or hinder a shipment that has all appropriate documentation.

I think its time to stop presenting these statements as fact, or like they are based on any evidence. Having concerns about the bloodline history of these individuals based on the trade history of this species, and having strong moral feelings about the trade in the species based on those doubts is one thing. A level headed and accurately represented discussion of these issues is completely acceptable. Drawing baseless conclusions that are presented as fact, however, does not help anyone actually become informed about the topic.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

Yes.

Carl

Small world. I remember doing some sort of business with him in the early 90's (probably pardalis) and also discussing his work breeding lateralis. It was a pretty small "community" back then!

 

[rshewfel]

Carl

It is an old recollection from a breeder in the New York area who posted for sale Furcifer minors, if I recall correctly on the classified adds for Reptiles Magazine.

So based off of the opinion of one breeder who advertised in a reptile magazine who you talked to a few times, you feel you have enough evidence to make a statement that furcifer minor can only be bred to f-3 or f-4?

Seriously, you don't see a problem with this?

 

[SMCNARY]

I would be surprised if Fish and Game did not confiscate even this shipment. Furcifer minor were only bred to the F4 generation in the USA (until ~1999) and to say a paper trail from before 1995 for an endangered species that only live 3-5 years made it to 2014 is nonsense.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

All this conjecture here and elsewhere from a guy that has begged Jurgen for a pair of these fantastic chameleons. I recommend members look up your comments on previous threads.
Steve

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

All this conjecture here and elsewhere from a guy that has begged Jurgen for a pair of these fantastic chameleons. I recommend members look up your comments on previous threads.
Steve

When have I ever begged Jurgen for any chameleons. I have not made any attempts to import chameleons from Europe ever. Talk about a statement that is not accurate. If anything I have warned everyone on these Forums to stay away from importing endangered species no matter how tempting they maybe.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

His name was Bob. He only produced a single clutch of cb's. I visited his place when I got a pair from him. His adult pair died long before the eggs hatched.

Carl

We talked about this in the past. When I talked with him "Off the top of my Head" he said F3 or F4. If that was not accurate data that he mentioned to me that is not accurate data. I can only account for what I think is accurate data and had for sale adds up for a couple years and that is what I recall he told me. I just looked and it is Bob I have got his phone number from the 1990's.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich