re Emerald
Moreliaman said:
Is it still correct to say Australia refuses to participate or recognize CITES ?
I don't know where you heard that. Australia was one of the first countries to ratify CITES and has always been at the forefront of curbing illegal trade in endangered species. The Conservation and Biodiversity Act of 1999 was written with CITES in mind. A big broo-haha recently took place when Taronga Zoo organised to import 5 Asian elephants, spent millions on exhibits and advertising, promotions, fund-raising etc, and then found they didn't have CITES permits. For a long time it looked like the Govt wouldn't issue them.
And theres no-way collecting will have a detrimental effect on 99% of species, habitat destruction is THE biggest threat to any specie.
Agreed. But to condone it, when it breaches international laws, simply because habitat destruction is a worse threat is just stupid. Especially when there is no census or research done on the effects trade is having on the species.
The story of the passenger pigeon has hardly any revalance to this !
Thousands of people were hunting them for food, it was a staple diet in most houses, as far as i know theres no one putting posion down for any reptiles, and the last house i went in never had any emerald monitors in the fridge !! or green tree pythons on gas mark 6 !
So unless we are going to start eating reptiles as often as we eat say.....chicken! i dont think theres any threat !
You still seem to be missing the point. So I'll say it again.
What is not relevant is the fact that using a bird as an analogy. What
is relevant is the fact that this species became extinct by collecting -
there was no loss of habitat, in fact, much of the original habitat still stands.
This species became extinct because man overcollected. There were more Passenger pigeons in North America 200 years ago than there are human beings alive today.
In 1870 a flock flew over Cincinatti. It was about one mile wide and 320 miles long. In 1806 the American ornithologist Alexander Wilson visited a breeding ground a few miles wide and 64 miles long. He estimated it contained 2.2 billion birds. In 1813 John James Audubon witnessed a flock he estimated to be 1.015 billion strong. And each of those instances are of just one flock - there were several flocks right across North America.
And that wasn't a typo - billion.
And the species was hunted and collected to extinction.
With no habitat loss.
Yes, they were hunted for food. So what, that makes no difference, only in the timeframe. If you like I can tell you about Spix's Macaw, a bird that was collected for the pet trade - it's now extinct in the wild and there are only about 30 birds alive in captivity. Not eaten, no habitat loss, and not found on an island - mainland South America.
So unless we are going to start eating reptiles as often as we eat say.....chicken! i dont think theres any threat !
You are of course, assuming that no-one in Indonesia eats these lizards either. Nor anyone in Hong Kong or Singapore. False assumption, methinks.
That is what nearly happened to a few species of geckoes, they were found on one island, over collected & then thought to be extinct in the wild, until they found large groups on other islands.
which would be a simular situation with emerald monitors, they are excellent swimmers, and with 17,500 islands to choose from !!
Except when collectors empty an island of the species they are targeting, they paddle to the other islands too.
America i believe is the biggest importer of wild collected animails, and i was told europe the second. Australia has an ever growing reptile market !
True. Except Australia does not allow the importation of exotic reptiles except in the case of zoos. And they have to get captive bred animals from other zoos. And the imported animals can't be sold to the public.
The global illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife parts is estimated by some to generate more revenue than any other trade, except drugs. More profits than arms dealing. With that much money available is it any wonder that so many species are endangered?
My original post reported the fact that in three separate seizures in one small part of the world, 112 Emerald Monitors were seized. If these were the only Emeralds exported from Indonesia then I would have to agree - the removal of that number would have a negligible effect on the wild population.
But 112 is just the tip of the iceberg. The number isn't important (and wasn't my original point), what
is important ius the fact that Emerald Minotors are being illegally exported from Indonesia.
And anyone who thinks that it's only 112 animals has no concept of the realties conservation bodies face.
OK, I've finished ranting. Congratulations on getting this far. Sorry it went on so long but I get very frustrated when people can't see what I see.
Hix
