Attention Newt Keepers

[Chris Newman]

The UK Government was forced into implementing the EPS regs, there is a substantial difference implementing them and ‘implementing them’ if you get my drift! Licensing and enforcement reside with Natural England, not the police. The EPS regs only apply to wild caught animals, captive bred being exempted. Whilst there is a reverse burden of proof, i.e. the authorities don’t have to prove the animals are wild you have to prove they are captive – is that legal I wonder!! The bottom-line is no one has to my knowledge been prosecuted and I rather expect it will stay that way! Notwithstanding all this, the situation is entirely unsatisfactory and unreasonable that people should have to live with the threat, no matter how remote that threat may be.

[Grandpa]

Lotte,

Just thought people should be made aware of whats going on. I respect your views, but. At present it is not illegal to trade in these newts, making them CITES 1, will not stop illegal trade trade, if anything it will create illegal trade in them - makes them more attractive to the looney fringe, or to the unscrupulous wanting to make a fast buck.

As for the poor Americans - due to the Lacy Act they lose their specimens, I am sure you would be upset if your animals were confiscated. There must be a better way to protect this newt, thats all.

Again, I just felt that keepers should be warned of the possibility, lets wait and see what happens.

[Saedcantas]

Originally Posted by Grandpa

Lotte,

Just thought people should be made aware of whats going on. I respect your views, but. At present it is not illegal to trade in these newts, making them CITES 1, will not stop illegal trade trade, if anything it will create illegal trade in them - makes them more attractive to the looney fringe, or to the unscrupulous wanting to make a fast buck.

As for the poor Americans - due to the Lacy Act they lose their specimens, I am sure you would be upset if your animals were confiscated. There must be a better way to protect this newt, thats all.

Again, I just felt that keepers should be warned of the possibility, lets wait and see what happens.

I see what you're saying Gramps And I do understand your personal concerns.

Afterall, irrespective of either of our opinions, neither of us can encourage nor persuade the Iranian gov't to lobby this or not.

I just felt the emphasis should be on raising awareness about determining origins now and indeed, that the average hobbyist should be aware about the potential need to know origins in the future.
I'm currently being stung by CITES myself, having purchased 4 Candoia sps. and needing export permits from the UK as I'm in Jersey, despite the fact that I have as much proof as is possible that they were indeed legaly imported, they want more than is reasonable or possible. Yet I still hold the opinion I do

[Chris Newman]

Originally Posted by Saedcantas

I see what you're saying Gramps And I do understand your personal concerns.

Afterall, irrespective of either of our opinions, neither of us can encourage nor persuade the Iranian gov't to lobby this or not.

This is not entirely correct, it is well within the powers of the UK [EU] to counter the Iranian proposal at CoP 15. Indeed the FBH is submitting to the EC Commission at next weeks meeting a counter proposal suggesting a CITES II listing for all Neurergus species, but with a zero export quota, rather than placing N. kaiseri on App I. The original propose of a CITES I listing for N. kaiseri was not the Iranian authorities, rather SSN who initially expected the US to take this forward. As the proposal was originated by SSN it is clearly not a proposal biased in science!

I think it is very clear that all Neurergus species are potentially at threat from illegal collecting for trade, habitat destruction is, however, a far more realistic threat. The fact that their has historically been a small trade in wild caught N. kaiseri they are now bread in ever increasing numbers, evident by the drop in price from 300 Euros down to 50 Euros. Uplifting the species to App I, rather than App II would be counter productive to conservation of the species. Therefore listing Neurergus species on CITES II, but with a zero export quota would prevent any illegal trade, but not discourage captive breeding therefore be a far more sensible, and constructive mechanism to protect the species.

[Saedcantas]

Originally Posted by Chris Newman

This is not entirely correct, it is well within the powers of the UK [EU] to counter the Iranian proposal at CoP 15. Indeed the FBH is submitting to the EC Commission at next weeks meeting a counter proposal suggesting a CITES II listing for all Neurergus species, but with a zero export quota, rather than placing N. kaiseri on App I. The original propose of a CITES I listing for N. kaiseri was not the Iranian authorities, rather SSN who initially expected the US to take this forward. As the proposal was originated by SSN it is clearly not a proposal biased in science!

I think it is very clear that all Neurergus species are potentially at threat from illegal collecting for trade, habitat destruction is, however, a far more realistic threat. The fact that their has historically been a small trade in wild caught N. kaiseri they are now bread in ever increasing numbers, evident by the drop in price from 300 Euros down to 50 Euros. Uplifting the species to App I, rather than App II would be counter productive to conservation of the species. Therefore listing Neurergus species on CITES II, but with a zero export quota would prevent any illegal trade, but not discourage captive breeding therefore be a far more sensible, and constructive mechanism to protect the species.

I'm sure you won't mind Chris, if I decline to debate this with you, we are fundamentally at odds. I've been present on enough forums for enough time to have a good picture of how you feel about these things and that for you, personally at least, keeping comes first 100% of the time.

I've already made my disagreement with that clear too, so lets simply agree that the most important thing would be to educate all hobbyists of the importance of determining and keeping records of the origin of your animals for future reference, that would be much more productive as an outcome to this topic.

Cheers
Lotte***

[Chris Newman]

Originally Posted by Saedcantas

I'm sure you won't mind Chris, if I decline to debate this with you, we are fundamentally at odds. I've been present on enough forums for enough time to have a good picture of how you feel about these things and that for you, personally at least, keeping comes first 100% of the time.

I've already made my disagreement with that clear too, so lets simply agree that the most important thing would be to educate all hobbyists of the importance of determining and keeping records of the origin of your animals for future reference, that would be much more productive as an outcome to this topic.

Cheers
Lotte***

That’s fine, but let us be very clear placing Neurergus kaiseri on Appendix I of CITES will be counter productive for the conservation of the species as it will lead to the illegal trade of wild specimens, there is know doubt of that. As Iran is the sole range state it has the power to prohibit trade, it has done this technically but fails to enforce this ban. Formally wild caught adults were sold for 300 Euros, and collectors were prepared to pay that. The wild caught trade diminished when the price of captive bred animals dropped to 50 Euros – who would pay 300 when you could get them for 50? If they are placed on App. I it will make captive bred animals illegal and promote trade in wild caught – that is obvious. Price would rise to say 500 Euros and this will make it attractive to smugglers. So if we are genuinely interested in conserving the wild population the only sensible solution is to place N. kaiseri on CITES II which will protect the wild populations by prohibiting trade in wild animals but allow breeders to bred them and satisfy the market with cheep captive bred animals. So if we are arguing conservation, App.II listing is the only sensible option. If we are taking Animal Rights [i.e. people shouldn’t keep them] then App.I makes sense.