# Cites management 2020 time for a reset?



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

Having made contact with UK authorities involved in the UK's administration of Cites, in relation to future EU reptile imports got to ask if it is time for changes and an update to how it works. Rather than the regulation of trade in endangered species the way Cites is now applied its seems the main mission is to stop all trade. Fact is that in the 45 years since Cites went operational a large captive breeding network has developed. As part of this, and take Royals as an example, hundreds of breeder created colour varied morphs are now in existence. Given that many of these morphs are detrimental to camouflage they have no presence in the wild environment. So seems a bit of a fallacy to label what does not exist in the wild as an endangered animal. Not only that we now have plenty of hybrid specimens that have no species category.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

I can understand the direction form where you are coming from, but irrespective of the colouration or patterning, a royal python is still a royal python. Trying to administer the importing / exporting of, let's say "domestic" variety because they were bred in captivity and look so different to the natural wild relatives would be impossible, and could lead to opening a can of worms and loopholes. For example, does breeding the odd Cites I snake in captivity make it any less endangered, or protected than one in the wild. You could then see many unscrupulous importers / exporters claiming the snake was captive bred / farmed and thus is exempt and needs less paperwork than if it was found in the wild, which would probably prevent the movement.


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

Malc said:


> I can understand the direction form where you are coming from, but irrespective of the colouration or patterning, a royal python is still a royal python. Trying to administer the importing / exporting of, let's say "domestic" variety because they were bred in captivity and look so different to the natural wild relatives would be impossible, and could lead to opening a can of worms and loopholes. For example, does breeding the odd Cites I snake in captivity make it any less endangered, or protected than one in the wild. You could then see many unscrupulous importers / exporters claiming the snake was captive bred / farmed and thus is exempt and needs less paperwork than if it was found in the wild, which would probably prevent the movement.


Probably time the UK Cites office got rid of their paper shufflers and got some employees in, with actual experience and knowledge of animals, so that they can separate what is wild from multi generational captive bred.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

harry python said:


> Probably time the UK Cites office got rid of their paper shufflers and got some employees in, with actual experience and knowledge of animals, so that they can separate what is wild from multi generational captive bred.


But again, how could anyone prove the difference. There are still wild snakes being found with unusual patterns or colouration on the traditional base format of "normal" royals. Plus what about all the normals bred in captivity that are het for this that and the other... how would you prove that they are long term captive and not a captive farmed animal.... Granted it would be fairly obvious that something like a visual pastel enchi clown would more probably be captive bred and not wild caught, but then as I stated before, a royal python is still a royal python. You would have to somehow have defining lists of "exempt" morphs that are likely to be captive bred, and those that should be listed, but how could you separate and administer an ever increasing morph list, and then how would they deal with all the morphs that look like normals (flame for example) to the administrators. Which also brings up the question of how this would be policed or checked. 

I agree that there are lots of things like CITES that could do with looking at and revisions may indeed be needed, but unless any changes can be made without impacting financially in order to administer those changes, I doubt that anything will happen.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

harry python said:


> Having made contact with UK authorities involved in the UK's administration of Cites, in relation to future EU reptile imports got to ask if it is time for changes and an update to how it works. Rather than the regulation of trade in endangered species the way Cites is now applied its seems the main mission is to stop all trade. Fact is that in the 45 years since Cites went operational a large captive breeding network has developed. As part of this, and take Royals as an example, hundreds of breeder created colour varied morphs are now in existence. Given that many of these morphs are detrimental to camouflage they have no presence in the wild environment. So seems a bit of a fallacy to label what does not exist in the wild as an endangered animal. Not only that we now have plenty of hybrid specimens that have no species category.


There are a number of points to raise here.
First, your reference to contacting UK authorities. There are only two. The Management Authority (APHA) and the Scientific Authority (JNCC for animals, Kew for plants).
Secondly, CITES is absolutely not there to stop all trade, but to ensure that trade is sustainable. In the case of CB animals, the trade would be allowed.
Third, hybrids are already covered. Where hybrids involving parent species of different Appendices are concerned, the hybrid takes the Appendix of the parent with the higher Appendix. So an App I x App II animal would be treated as if it was App I itself.
As for CB animals, well, im not sure why you have an issue. 
CITES is not a conservation tool. 
It is a trade convention.
The UK is one of 177 countries that are members of CITES. We cannot pick and choose how the Convention is applied.


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

Malc said:


> But again, how could anyone prove the difference. There are still wild snakes being found with unusual patterns or colouration on the traditional base format of "normal" royals. Plus what about all the normals bred in captivity that are het for this that and the other... how would you prove that they are long term captive and not a captive farmed animal.... Granted it would be fairly obvious that something like a visual pastel enchi clown would more probably be captive bred and not wild caught, but then as I stated before, a royal python is still a royal python. You would have to somehow have defining lists of "exempt" morphs that are likely to be captive bred, and those that should be listed, but how could you separate and administer an ever increasing morph list, and then how would they deal with all the morphs that look like normals (flame for example) to the administrators. Which also brings up the question of how this would be policed or checked.
> 
> I agree that there are lots of things like CITES that could do with looking at and revisions may indeed be needed, but unless any changes can be made without impacting financially in order to administer those changes, I doubt that anything will happen.


So an absolute no to the question in the title of the thread?


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

harry python said:


> So an absolute no to the question in the title of the thread?


Can't see it happening for the reasons stated in the posts above.


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

Malc said:


> Can't see it happening for the reasons stated in the posts above.


First thing I would like to see change is a rocket up the rear end of the UK Cites office in Bristol and the instruction to start providing a satisfactory and rapid service to the people who are paying their wages.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

harry python said:


> First thing I would like to see change is a rocket up the rear end of the UK Cites office in Bristol and the instruction to start providing a satisfactory and rapid service to the people who are paying their wages.


Its quite clear you don't understand the processes with CITES species.
It is an international convention. Every member country must have domestic legislation to bring the convention into domestic law. So it is for that reason that we cannot decide to change bits of it. Either a species is controlled or it isn't.
Every proposed import has to be approved by the Scientific Authority, who must give a Non Dertriment Finding to allow it to take place. Then the Management Authority issue the permits.
The time taken to process both of these will clearly depend on how many proposed trades have been applied for at any one time.
Those used to importing CITES species from outside the EU know this takes time, so factor this in. Now that imports from the EU also need permits means that this will be a longer delay. It means an end to impulse purchasing and planning ahead instead. Which frankly is no bad thing. Especially when there are plenty of royal breeders in the UK.


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

ian14 said:


> Its quite clear you don't understand the processes with CITES species.
> It is an international convention. Every member country must have domestic legislation to bring the convention into domestic law. So it is for that reason that we cannot decide to change bits of it. Either a species is controlled or it isn't.
> Every proposed import has to be approved by the Scientific Authority, who must give a Non Dertriment Finding to allow it to take place. Then the Management Authority issue the permits.
> The time taken to process both of these will clearly depend on how many proposed trades have been applied for at any one time.
> Those used to importing CITES species from outside the EU know this takes time, so factor this in. Now that imports from the EU also need permits means that this will be a longer delay. It means an end to impulse purchasing and planning ahead instead. Which frankly is no bad thing. Especially when there are plenty of royal breeders in the UK.


The issue I am raising is for the transfer of ownership for article 10 certificates already in the country and any other subsequent offspring. As to import/export I have learnt that it can take up to 5 months to obtain a a export permit for a UK based captive offspring with the permit then being useless because it contains spelling mistakes. Obviously the scientific authority is not as clued up as they need to be.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

harry python said:


> The issue I am raising is for the transfer of ownership for article 10 certificates already in the country and any other subsequent offspring. As to import/export I have learnt that it can take up to 5 months to obtain a a export permit for a UK based captive offspring with the permit then being useless because it contains spelling mistakes. Obviously the scientific authority is not as clued up as they need to be.


Maybe the reason they take so long and reject applications if there is a spelling mistake is so that movement in App1 is something that doesn't happen and means that it's a hurdle that puts people off, unless they are really serious breeders / sellers.

Not sure if its due to Covid, but it seems any administration of things takes time these days. Having had to sadly put our GSD to sleep on September I notified the agency that stores all chip data that the records need deleting - we received confirmation that it was completed two months later.

I'm guessing that the agencies that deal with Cites paperwork are equally stretched and this compounds the delay. As for the spelling mistake.. well that's down to whoever filled out the form :whistling2:


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

harry python said:


> *The issue I am raising is for the transfer of ownership for article 10 certificates already in the country and any other subsequent offspring*. As to import/export I have learnt that it can take up to 5 months to obtain a a export permit for a UK based captive offspring with the permit then being useless because it contains spelling mistakes. Obviously the scientific authority is not as clued up as they need to be.


As I said already, you clearly do not understand the CITES legislation, this being the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES) Regs 1997.
You cannot transfer ownership of Article 10 certificates. They also relate to the individual specimen, not for their offspring as well.
If you are trying to get APHA to do something that is impossible its no surprise you are still waiting!
There are two types of A10. Transaction Specific Certificate (TSC) and Specimen Specific Certificate (SCC). Generally, a TSC is issued for the sale of hatchlings. These are valid for the one single sale from the person named on the A10.
An SSC stays with the specimen and is handed over when it is sold.
To sell offspring you must apply for new A10s for each individual you are selling.
As for export permits, well, its down to you to make sure the application is correct, with the correct names, spellings, numbers and sexes. Any error will result in one of two things. Refusal to issue a permit, or if one is issued, seizure at the other end.
One of my roles at work is a CITES enforcement officer.
Feel free to pm me your phone number and I will happily talk you through the legislation.


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

ian14 said:


> As I said already, you clearly do not understand the CITES legislation, this being the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES) Regs 1997.
> You cannot transfer ownership of Article 10 certificates. They also relate to the individual specimen, not for their offspring as well.
> If you are trying to get APHA to do something that is impossible its no surprise you are still waiting!
> There are two types of A10. Transaction Specific Certificate (TSC) and Specimen Specific Certificate (SCC). Generally, a TSC is issued for the sale of hatchlings. These are valid for the one single sale from the person named on the A10.
> ...


Sorry but i cannot accept your view that I am to blame for the spelling mistakes made by you or your other colleagues working for the UK Cites office in Bristol. Generally i am against privatisation of public offices but I think your office and the poor service given by it would benefit from being transferred into the private sector.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

harry python said:


> Sorry but i cannot accept your view that I am to blame for the spelling mistakes made by you or your other colleagues working for the UK Cites office in Bristol.


Who filled the forms in?? - If that was you then who else is to blame ?????


----------



## harry python (Sep 21, 2015)

Malc said:


> Who filled the forms in?? - If that was you then who else is to blame ?????


Person who normally fills in the EXPORT PERMITS in the UK Cites Bristol office?????


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

harry python said:


> Person who normally fills in the EXPORT PERMITS in the UK Cites Bristol office?????


Not really forthcoming with info...

If say you applied over the telephone, verbally gave the clerk the details and he/she filled in the forms on your behalf and misspelt words on the form then you would have every right to complain and request either a refund for the cost of the service, or for them to correctly complete new forms.

Likewise if the application process was online, and then the clerk had to transpose data manually from the online forms onto the correct paperwork, then again you would have (IMO) cause for appeal.

If however they just copied what you filled in and the mistake was on your part, then naturally they can be blamed. Regretfully I don't know enough about the process, either before or after any pandemic measures in place to say otherwise.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

harry python said:


> Sorry but i cannot accept your view that I am to blame for the spelling mistakes made by you or your other colleagues working for the UK Cites office in Bristol. Generally i am against privatisation of public offices but I think your office and the poor service given by it would benefit from being transferred into the private sector.


I do not work for APHA 
Filling out a form is not difficult. 
If you cannot manage to fill one out with the correct spelling then, frankly, that is your problem.
You fill out the form. Your responsibility for doing it correctly.
Honestly, its not a difficult form to fill out.
And yes, YOU are to blame for spelling mistakes on a form that you have filled out!!

And an inability to spell doesn't change the situation that you appear to want something to happen that legally can't.


----------

