Has Tanzania reopened for export?

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Just a quick note. Tanzania has quotas for 2012 however their species description requires much updates. One is on the CITES quotas they listing all former Fischers Chameleons species under one species name, Kinyongia fischeri, and have this one species (even though there are seven or eight species that were considered Fischers Chameleons) with quotas set at 3000 WC animals and 180 F1 farm raised animals. This quota should be redone and address individual species then replace an updated quota for an over generalized Kinyongia fischeri title.

Some species that are considered Fischers Chameleons are exceptionally rare and should have extremely limited quotas if at all. Making them making them apart of a 3000 WC animal quota could be dangerous for such a rare species in the wild.

Along CITES for Tanzania quotas should probable use the most updated genus names. They are still calling the Trioceros genus Chamaeleo.

Still after a year there is no word about the status of exporting chameleons from Tanzania.

 

[Seeco]

There was just anothet large ivory poaching scandal so that might put things on lockdown for awhile. That said it sometimes seems like folks in europe have access.

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

There was just anothet large ivory poaching scandal so that might put things on lockdown for awhile. That said it sometimes seems like folks in europe have access.

It pays to be a neighbor to Africa. Especially when it comes to African chameleons. Along with that Europe is just down the street from Madagascar too. North America is definitely on the other side of the pond/globe.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Just a quick note. Tanzania has quotas for 2012 however their species description requires much updates. One is on the CITES quotas they listing all former Fischers Chameleons species under one species name, Kinyongia fischeri, and have this one species (even though there are seven or eight species that were considered Fischers Chameleons) with quotas set at 3000 WC animals and 180 F1 farm raised animals. This quota should be redone and address individual species then replace an updated quota for an over generalized Kinyongia fischeri title.

Some species that are considered Fischers Chameleons are exceptionally rare and should have extremely limited quotas if at all. Making them making them apart of a 3000 WC animal quota could be dangerous for such a rare species in the wild.

Along CITES for Tanzania quotas should probable use the most updated genus names. They are still calling the Trioceros genus Chamaeleo.

Still after a year there is no word about the status of exporting chameleons from Tanzania.

CITES is very conservative with the nomenclature changes they adopt, particularly in the case of split species. This is because taxonomy is always in flux and when new taxonomic changes are made, they are often debated in the scientific literature for some time afterward. When CITES does adopt a nomenclature change, it will be used at national and international levels for permits and other documents that can serve as the basis of subsequent documents and permits (re-export permits, etc.) for decades. Because CITES regulates organisms from plants and corals to whales and elephants, and everything in between, when they do adopt a nomenclature change, it has to be a solid one, otherwise they would quickly loose their ability to keep track of things.

The IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group has gotten a number of nomenclature changes accepted by the Scientific Committees of CITES this year, however they need to have final approval at the Conferences of the Parties. This includes the elevation of Trioceros as a full genus, the addition of a number of newly described species, the elevation of certain subspecies to full species (finally recognizing many of the Bradypodion species as full species rather than subspecies of B. pumilum, for example), etc. There are still a number of others being working on, however, including the taxonomic status of Rhampholeon spinosus (=Bradypodion spinosum according to CITES), and the status of the K. fischeri group. Unfortunately in practice it is not possible for conservation and management efforts to be nearly as fast as theory would hope, at least if you want the system to last in the long term.

Chris

 

[Seeco]

It pays to be a neighbor to Africa. Especially when it comes to African chameleons. Along with that Europe is just down the street from Madagascar too. North America is definitely on the other side of the pond/globe.

Ya it is amazing to think how close those guys are to giraffes, hippos and all that.

 

[Seeco]

The IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group has gotten a number of nomenclature changes accepted by the Scientific Committees of CITES this year, however they need to have final approval at the Conferences of the Parties. This includes the elevation of Trioceros as a full genus, the addition of a number of newly described species, the elevation of certain subspecies to full species (finally recognizing many of the Bradypodion species as full species rather than subspecies of B. pumilum, for example), etc. There are still a number of others being working on, however, including the taxonomic status of Rhampholeon spinosus (=Bradypodion spinosum according to CITES), and the status of the K. fischeri group. Unfortunately in practice it is not possible for conservation and management efforts to be nearly as fast as theory would hope, at least if you want the system to last in the long term.

Chris

Good point Chris. I'll add to that the fact that wildlife inspectors must then re-educate to properly ID redefined species.

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

CITES is very conservative with the nomenclature changes they adopt, particularly in the case of split species. This is because taxonomy is always in flux and when new taxonomic changes are made, they are often debated in the scientific literature for some time afterward. When CITES does adopt a nomenclature change, it will be used at national and international levels for permits and other documents that can serve as the basis of subsequent documents and permits (re-export permits, etc.) for decades. Because CITES regulates organisms from plants and corals to whales and elephants, and everything in between, when they do adopt a nomenclature change, it has to be a solid one, otherwise they would quickly loose their ability to keep track of things.

The IUCN Chameleon Specialist Group has gotten a number of nomenclature changes accepted by the Scientific Committees of CITES this year, however they need to have final approval at the Conferences of the Parties. This includes the elevation of Trioceros as a full genus, the addition of a number of newly described species, the elevation of certain subspecies to full species (finally recognizing many of the Bradypodion species as full species rather than subspecies of B. pumilum, for example), etc. There are still a number of others being working on, however, including the taxonomic status of Rhampholeon spinosus (=Bradypodion spinosum according to CITES), and the status of the K. fischeri group. Unfortunately in practice it is not possible for conservation and management efforts to be nearly as fast as theory would hope, at least if you want the system to last in the long term.

Chris

I'm OK with CITES taking their time with updating the nomenclature (genus names). Just as long as they are talking about the same species. My main concern though is the over generalized terms of calling species Chamaeleo fischeri when actually it is seven or eight species being called under one name. That is not effective conservation. Collecting specimens could cause more harm than good especially if it is one of a couple species under this name that are exceedingly rare in the wild to begin with. That being stated I would prefer the updates on species to happen faster than the updates on genus names. If CITES is doing their best then they are doing their best. It just seems as though CITES would have a herpetologist on their payroll/staff who can officially update the recognition of species. Especially when it applies to conservation of exceedingly rare species in the wild to begin with and quotas in regards to collecting them.

Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Chris Anderson]

I'm OK with CITES taking their time with updating the nomenclature (genus names). Just as long as they are talking about the same species. My main concern though is the over generalized terms of calling species Chamaeleo fischeri when actually it is seven or eight species being called under one name. That is not effective conservation. Collecting specimens could cause more harm than good especially if it is one of a couple species under this name that are exceedingly rare in the wild to begin with. That being stated I would prefer the updates on species to happen faster than the updates on genus names. If CITES is doing their best then they are doing their best. It just seems as though CITES would have a herpetologist on their payroll/staff who can officially update the recognition of species. Especially when it applies to conservation of exceedingly rare species in the wild to begin with and quotas in regards to collecting them.

Jeremy A. Rich

To be honest, I'm less worried about them accepting the splitting of the K. fischeri group than them recognizing the change of Bradypodion spinosum to Rhampholeon spinosus.

The fact of the matter is, while "K. fischeri" have been exported in large numbers, those exports have never included more than a marginal number of species other than K. multituberculata, and as far as I can tell, only three specimens of true K. fischeri and no specimens of K. uluguruensis have ever been exported. Since these are the two especially rare taxa, I don't consider those numbers an immediate threat to their populations.

The case of Rhampholeon spinosus, however, is much more alarming. The issue is that currently CITES does not have any Rhampholeon species listed on their Appendices, meaning no Rhampholeon is protected under CITES. Rhampholeon spinosus, however, is recognized by CITES as Bradypodion spinosum, and is protected by CITES under this classification. A CITES species does not suddenly lose CITES listing just because it is reclassified to a new genus, but in this case, importers and exporters are skirting around the protection status of this species by exporting/importing them as a Rhampholeon species, and thus not getting the required CITES documents for them (which are limited to a very small quantity of F1 specimens). This is illegal, but it is not stopping either the importers or exporters, who are relying on inspectors being ignorant of the conflicting taxonomies. Rhampholeon spinosus is listed by the IUCN Red List as Endangered, and it can not take being exported en mass as a Rhampholeon without CITES controls. This to me is a much more serious issue than K. fischeri.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I'm OK with CITES taking their time with updating the nomenclature (genus names). Just as long as they are talking about the same species. My main concern though is the over generalized terms of calling species Chamaeleo fischeri when actually it is seven or eight species being called under one name. That is not effective conservation. Collecting specimens could cause more harm than good especially if it is one of a couple species under this name that are exceedingly rare in the wild to begin with. That being stated I would prefer the updates on species to happen faster than the updates on genus names. If CITES is doing their best then they are doing their best. It just seems as though CITES would have a herpetologist on their payroll/staff who can officially update the recognition of species. Especially when it applies to conservation of exceedingly rare species in the wild to begin with and quotas in regards to collecting them.

Jeremy A. Rich

To be honest, I'm less worried about them accepting the splitting of the K. fischeri group than them recognizing the change of Bradypodion spinosum to Rhampholeon spinosus.

The fact of the matter is, while "K. fischeri" have been exported in large numbers, those exports have never included more than a marginal number of species other than K. multituberculata, and as far as I can tell, only three specimens of true K. fischeri and no specimens of K. uluguruensis have ever been exported. Since these are the two especially rare taxa, I don't consider those numbers an immediate threat to their populations.

The case of Rhampholeon spinosus, however, is much more alarming. The issue is that currently CITES does not have any Rhampholeon species listed on their Appendices, meaning no Rhampholeon is protected under CITES. Rhampholeon spinosus, however, is recognized by CITES as Bradypodion spinosum, and is protected by CITES under this classification. A CITES species does not suddenly lose CITES listing just because it is reclassified to a new genus, but in this case, importers and exporters are skirting around the protection status of this species by exporting/importing them as a Rhampholeon species, and thus not getting the required CITES documents for them (which are limited to a very small quantity of F1 specimens). This is illegal, but it is not stopping either the importers or exporters, who are relying on inspectors being ignorant of the conflicting taxonomies. Rhampholeon spinosus is listed by the IUCN Red List as Endangered, and it can not take being exported en mass as a Rhampholeon without CITES controls. This to me is a much more serious issue than K. fischeri.

Chris

Chris

That is interesting situation about Rhampholeon spinosus and could be said as opposite (making what seems to be two species when its one) yet equally important to whats happening with Fischers Chameleons (making one species into many). However that is one of my points as stated above that CITES is not considering them as the same species (with the title of Endangered species) when they are the same species. Ambiguity such as this with an organization with the responsibilities of CITES should be avoided and limited. I actually have seen this loop hole happen with CITES before (One endangered species being split into other species that are not listed as endangered) and if there was a team of herpetologist/biologist set to manage problems such as these could improve the handling of similar situations and make CITES responsibilities much more effective. This being done just by being prompt to update nomenclature changes for both situations listed above. Yet making situation in regards to collection/quotas making much clearer.


Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

It pays to be a neighbor to Africa. Especially when it comes to African chameleons. Along with that Europe is just down the street from Madagascar too. North America is definitely on the other side of the pond/globe.

Ya it is amazing to think how close those guys are to giraffes, hippos and all that.

Being closer to Africa probably means that all exported wild caught chameleons arrive in conditions far more desirable than how they arrive hear in North America.