CITES classification of Womas and others...

[Invictus]

I was browsing the CITES species list, and I noticed that Aspidites Ramsayi (Womas) and Aspidites Melanocephalus (Blackheadeds) were CITES II listed. So why is it that it is supposedly damn near impossible go get these species from the states, since they are in the exact same CITES class as common BCIs? Am I missing something about how CITES works? Is it because it's hard to prove that they were captive bred? I'm wondering if it works this way for other species as well. If anyone can shed some light on this for me, it would be much appreciated.

[Vanan]

I was under the impression that CITES paperwork for getting Aspidites across was the same as for other boids. No more difficult then getting a boa across.

[Lisa]

there's also the lacey (or is it lacy?) act to consider, and i think it covers species native to the USA.

[joshm]

Because they are Australian species, same as the dwarf monitors. I have heard lots of stuff about it but it all leads back to this, from what I've been told.

[Stockwell]

Bingo... It's because there are almost no legal ones in the USA.
The USA is not currently providing CITES export permits for most Australian Boids and monitors
You need paper to get paper. The USF&W won't provide export permits unless it can be proved how they got into the country(legally) to start with... Seeing how Aus, doesn't export any wildlife, most of them in North American, came by questionable means.

However if they come from Europe with a European CITES export permit, then they are legal in both the USA and Canada... and those countries can both then export them to each other or to any other country
Of course the perplexing question is how did they get from Australia to Europe?

The reality is that its easier to get export permits in some countries, than others.

[Vanan]

I doubt that being an Australian species affects anything. I thought that all the US Fish and Wildlife and Canada Customs cares about is what's in the big CITES book. There's no distinction between species cept for being CITES Appendix 1, 2 or 3 animals.

Edit: Forget the above. I wasn't aware that the US F&W is not accepting applications anymore. Made myself sound dumb now. :D

[mice4you]

It's simple. Because Australia's borders are closed, the founding stock was mainly smuggled from Australia. US Fish and Wildlife will not issue a CITES permit for ANY Australian reptile unless it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that the founding parents were legally obtained.

It makes sense on one hand. If they are giving permits for founder animals that were illegal in nature, then they are supporting the illegal animal trade. On the other hand, they are supporting the trade by allowing the prices to stay high which entices additional animal smuggling.

[Invictus]

Interestingly enough, CITES only says that the animal itself must be legally obtained. It says nothing at all about the parents of the animal. If something is captive bred in a certain country, doesn't that make it automatically "legal"? It's not like you're exporting the smuggled parents - the offspring were born in a captive environment. So in other words, if I buy a woma from Henry Piorun and another one from Don Patterson, and I breed them together and try to export these babies, it means that the parents of the parents of the parents were obtained by questionable means - but wouldn't this be the case with all Aussie reptiles? As far as I know, you can ship Spotties over the border until your arm falls off from CITES paperwork.

Some laws are just plain lame. Nonetheless, thanks for the insight everyone!

EDIT: Never mind, apparently it does apply to spotties too. Scratch that comment. But I still think it's lame. :)

[Stockwell]

It may seem a bit complicated Ken, but the goal is to not support smuggled animals in any way shape or form.
Just because it's captive bred doesn't make it legal. If it was that simple there would be more smuggling if it only took one generation to "launder" the offspring.
Just because it's captive bred doesn't mean you'll be granted CITES export permits to ship it elsewhere. The founder stock is what must be proven, most of the time.(just remember"Need paper to get paper")
I have exported childrens pythons, but I also have European CITES for the founder stock. I've also both imported and exported white Lip Pythons, but since they are not strictly Aussie main land , that is easier( legally sourced to Indonesia)
Getting Canadian CITES to export aussie stuff, is easier than it is for Americans to export the same.
PS
You're pretty daring to mention names here and suggest that specific individuals have animals obtained through "questionable means".
There are Canadians importing Aussie snakes from Europe,and other party nations, and as long as they arrive here with valid CITES , they are considered legal by our government

[Katt]

Wait a sec, I was under the impression that Australia had open borders at one point, and many many years ago, legal animals arrived on NA shores.

[Stockwell]

Yes, I've heard that rumour too. Some animals did make it to zoos etc.. and it's fairly safe to say that most if not all zoo stock was/is acquired legally, however animals produced by zoos, don't generally end up in private collections
Even if you claim the founder animals are zoo stock, or pre CITES or came over with Chris Columbus, you better have a paper trail to prove it.

All this discussion really leads to one resolve.
If you're buying CITES animals(especially high end ones) with hopes of breeding and exporting their offspring, only buy them if you get a copy of the CITES or other verification that they were imported legally.

The Canadian wildlife service that administers CITES will sometimes accept petstore receipts as proof of legal origin for the more common Boids and monitors providing they know such petstores are ruitinely importing legally. The govenment gets the original CITES permits from all imports, so they have files on everyone doing business legally.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by Stockwell
PS
You're pretty daring to mention names here and suggest that specific individuals have animals obtained through "questionable means".
There are Canadians importing Aussie snakes from Europe,and other party nations, and as long as they arrive here with valid CITES , they are considered legal by our government

If you read what I wrote, I said "the parents of the parents of the parents" - That means 3 generations back, so 2 back from the names I mentioned. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the people I mentioned are 100% above board, and that is why I mentioned it, but I can see that it still looked a little bad, so I apologize for any misconceptions.

[gonesnakee]

Heres a new twist for everyone. I heard rumours that even if you don't have the orginal CITES, that if you can prove that they are 3rd generation captive bred you may be able to aquire paperwork anyway? Anyone know any more on this angle? Mark
P.S. I knew what ya meant in your example Ken : )