Madagascar Export Quota

[Justin Carl]

I have been going through the CITES export quotas for the past couple of years.
My question is why they dont let more species out of the country.
There are 70+ species yet they only let:
2007-8 species out of the country
2006-8 species out of the country
2005-8 species out of the country
2004-4 species out of the country
2003-4 species out of the country

F. antimena is such a cool species from what I have seen.
I bet Brad R. would like to get his hands on one of these guys.
Mr. dry lowland airid

F. minor is also a beautiful species.

F. labordi both the males and females are beautiful.

Even some of the Calumma species.

I know a lot of the animals are found in national parks.
Could this be a reason?

 

[Kent67]

What you should be researching are the numbers of the restricted species that were exported out of Madagascar prior to 1995. In particular the early 1990's. It was truly out of hand. In late 1994 CITES recommended that exports of all species of Chamaeleo (Furcifer and Calumma) be restricted except for the 4 still allowed out today pending impact studies on wild populations. If studies were conducted that showed exporting these species for the pet trade did not jeopardize their survival in the wild, it is likely that the restrictions would be lifted under a quota system similar to what we see for the four Furcifer species now.

It has been 13+ years since CITES restricted those species. The monetary value of Calumma species has skyrocketed since then. I often ask myself: Why would the exporter/importer chain not finance any studies that could potentially mean more (highly valuable) species being available for export? I can only think of two reasons. The first, they know that the results of any such studies would prove that exporting anything but the 'weedy' species like F. pardalis, etc WOULD be detrimental. Or, the second reason is that they don't need to, because the animals still find their way out of the country even with the restrictions in place (hence Parson's chameleons are 30-35 times more expensive now than they were 12 years ago.)

 

[Kent67]

Oh, and here's the CITES notification to the parties where it explains the above: http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/1995/833.txt

 

[reyesjoshuacruz]

Hmmmmmmm

Well i dont even know what went down on the forums back in pre 99 with the " flame wars" or whatever that refers to, so i cant say anything for sure.

But i went through the adcham list serve and started at the start of things..

and came across these

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ADCHAM/message/40

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ADCHAM/message/58

it seems like most people were opposed to the addition of certain chams.. I get the feeling (again i dont know anything) that the person(S) that wanted them on the list we jumping the gun, overreacting, on a high horse ect... some vets please shed light on this

 

[Kent67]

F. labordi both the males and females are beautiful.

Furcifer labordi has a natural lifespan of about five months. They hatch, grow, breed, and die in five months. Would that be a good pet? Breeding project?

 

[Kent67]

it seems like most people were opposed to the addition of certain chams.. I get the feeling (again i dont know anything) that the person(S) that wanted them on the list we jumping the gun, overreacting, on a high horse ect... some vets please shed light on this

I think you've taken what happened slightly out of context. The posts you linked to were in 1999 when Parson's chameleons had already been restricted from legal export for 4 years. At that point a proposal was being made to move Calumma parsonii from Appendix II to Appendix I which would keep it restricted from all commercial trade, if the current ban was lifted.

One way or another, I don't think anyone would disagree that Parson's chameleons are a species that can be exported out of Madagascar in unchecked numbers and that something needed to be done. I'd love to see a small quota of them allowed out legally each year, but until studies are done that show it can be done responsibly, it ain't gonna happen.

Forgetting the fact that they are very difficult to breed, here's a fun fact: "According to data from CITES World Conservation Monitoring Centre 18,737 Parson's chameleons were exported from Madagascar from 1986 to 1998. Most were during the 8 years before the suspension in '95. As the heaviest species of chameleon, they weigh between 300 to 600 grams. Let's call it an average of say 450 grams each. That is EIGHT TONS of Parson's chameleons, of which it was estimated roughly 1%(186 pounds)were still alive by Fall 2001."

 

[reyesjoshuacruz]

?

thanks kent, i needed that cleared up.

so how does one prove low/ no impact of exportation. if the species are are not to be exported

 

[BIGGUN]

How long do Parson's normally live in the wild?

Kevin

 

[Justin Carl]

Furcifer labordi has a natural lifespan of about five months. They hatch, grow, breed, and die in five months. Would that be a good pet? Breeding project?

I forgot about the article Chris showed us on there life cycle. lol
No, not a good pet or breeding project.
Definitely beautiful and there courtship is a little on the rough side.
I cant keep up with all these chameleon species!
I'm still in "sponge mode" trying to get all this stuff in and remember it.

Thanks for all the information Kent.
It would be nice to see some studies done on the amount of chameleons out there.
Like with all research it is very exspensive.
Chris probablly knows it better then most of us.
I cant stand budgets!

There are a lot more species in the Calumma genera besides Parsonii that I would be interested in.

 

[BIGGUN]

All I can find seems to say somewhere between 4-7 year lifespan.

So ALL imports from the following years would be dead naturally: 1986,1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992,1993,1994. If the '95 imports evenly ranged from 1-7 years old and the lifespan IS 7 years, only 14% of those imports could be alive. '96 would be 28%, '97 would be 42%,'98 would be 56%.

If the export numbers didn't drop at all from 95-98 then statistically 11% should have been alive. (Again assuming a 7 year lifespan)

If the export numbers were only cut in half in those last years then it would be 7%

If they were lowered to 25% of previous years then it would be less than 4%.

On the other end of the spectrum if the lifespan was 4 years only 2% should have been alive even if the export numbers NEVER dropped.

If the export numbers were cut in half that gets you to your 1%.

I know at first glance 1% looks like a horrible number. But unless I'm missing something I think the keepers did a great job keeping 186 lbs of chams alive right up to the point of their natural death.

Kevin

 

[Chris Anderson]

I know at first glance 1% looks like a horrible number. But unless I'm missing something I think the keepers did a great job keeping 186 lbs of chams alive right up to the point of their natural death.

Kevin

Kevin-Parson's live upwards of 20 years. You probably don't have to redo the math to realize the error in your conclusions.

I would love to see very limited quotas of a lot of the other species released but I don't think it is going to happen. As it is now, they can't even legally allow out CB specimens.

Studies on a single species to determine what the impact of exportation would be are incredibly expensive and time consuming. It would require trips various habitat locales for a species over a number of years to extensively study demographics, distribution, population densities, reproductive strategy, reproduction rates, hatching rates, survival rates at various ages, and the list continues. Multiply that by the number of species you want to review and the overall distribution of those species and you aren't looking at a cheap study at all.

Chris

 

[Brad Ramsey]

Parson's live quite a bit longer than 7 years, if healthy and properly cared for.
20 years?
I think that is right.

-Brad

 

[Brad Ramsey]

Chris you beat me to it.


-Brad

 

[BIGGUN]

OK. I didn't find that. I didn't bookmark the links but my search led me to 2 or 3 sites (1 or 2 zoos and 1 university) that had them listed at between 4-7 years. Maybe they meant in the wild. ????

Where does the 20 years come from? Is that in captivity?


HEY! My math wasn't wrong........just my info.


Kevin

 

[Brad Ramsey]

4 to 7 years?
sounds like old info for a Veiled or Panther.

-Brad

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

stupid humans.

Parson's kept in proper conditions have pushed that low number figure out the window.
just think about it for a second.

a niche animal like that... slow metabolism
2 year incubation for eggs with a single laying season per year
cannot sustain itself with just a 4 year life span.
I would expect these animals to take 1.5 years to reach breeding age.

I have no doubt that the life span is 20 years
it's just that the early keepers didn't take good care of them
and blamed the animal...

Now due the rape of the native populations
parsons are costing thousands each.
All lost because someone wanted a quick buck in the animal trade
now many are lost due to the gang rape that happened in the 80's.

The situation would be different for all the island species
if the good people of madagascar weren't clear cutting all their forests
and land to make chopsticks and charcoal with nowdays
the native animal population would have had a chance to rebound

 

[Kent67]

The situation would be different for all the island species
if the good people of madagascar weren't clear cutting all their forests
and land to make chopsticks and charcoal with nowdays
the native animal population would have had a chance to rebound

Try convincing the farmer whose family is starving that those chameleons are more important than having access to arable land. It's not that simple.

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Try convincing the farmer whose family is starving
that those chameleons are more important than having access
to arable land. It's not that simple.

I'm not saying that it's not a difficult cultural problem for people to approach.

What I am saying is that the population booms that the 3rd world experiences
are the result of heightened medical care and increased food supply
- brought in from "the developed world". The developed world are also the ones
that happen to foster the exploitation of many of the "cheap resources"
available (pet trade aside).

What should proceed in conjunction with the introduction of humanitarian aid:
Education, family planning and change in cultural values.
so that the society's infrastructure can be developed effectively.
A early population boom is sadly one of the main reasons
for economic desperation and native resource loss in developing nations.

The rape of resources for a quick fix is the surest way to doom
for everyone on this planet. (imho)

It's a long discussion I know.. best for another thread.