CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chris Takahashi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:53:16 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (109 lines)
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 01:37:56 -0400, Rich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It appears to me that there are several issues intertwined here.
>
>1. E-bay policies.  What may or may not be sold on e-bay is partially
>independent of wildlife laws.  E-bay policies prevent selling many items
>which are legal to buy and sell, such as pet animals.

(That may be true but the issue here is offering for sale Achatinella. In
this case Ebay's policy of restricting the sells of endangered species is
correct.I think we as shellers all agree on this point.)


>
>2. CITES.  Doesn't this only apply to international trade?  Since the
shells
>in question originated in Hawaii and were sold in Florida, the only
>violations occur when the seller sells to buyers outside of the USA.
Sales
>to other collectors within the USA has nothing to do with CITES.
>

(It applies to all trade/sales of a protected endangered species, not just
in the USA. It's the law. The sellers listings had no claus for excluding
non-US customers from purchasing Achatinella)


>3. Endangered Species Act.  Generally, possession of endangered species
>collected before enactment of the law is legal.  Supposedly, large numbers
>of Achatinella were taken before collection was banned.  The seller stated
>that these shells came from an old collection.  Hopefully he has
>documentation.

(In this case a expert in the field of Malacology is asked to verify if in
his/her opionion if the said items were recent or possibly collected
before the ban took place.)


>
>4. Some of the Achatinella species that were sold on e-bay are listed as
>extinct by the IUCN.  According to the Bishop Museum's web site, many of
the
>extinct Achatinella species went extinct before the ESA was enacted in
1973.
>These should be legal to sell and possess regardless of other
documentation.

(This point i agree with and it was brought up at a HMS meeting where US
Fish & Wildlife agents with the main regional head were explaining this
issue at a club meeting. As with all protected species any offerings of
extinct Achatinella species fuels a public desire for other Achatinella
species still living thus defeated the original intent of protection of
all Achatinella. Anyway if a law is in the book, right or wrong, it's
nearly impossible to change it. Some of us can argue till were blue in the
face but until any ammendments if any are done the law is the law.)


>
>
>It appears to me that the accusations of illegality of the seller may be
>overstated.  It would appear to me that only the sale of non-extinct
species
>to overseas buyers might be in violation of CITES, and then only if they
do
>not have an exemption for specimens collected before the treaty was
enacted.

(Ok but in the original postings there was no mention of restricting non-
US overseas buyers from purchasing Achatinella. You're implying he never
meant the items to go outside the USA? That wasn't included in his
description. That means the seller was purely driven by selling what he
had to anyone who can pay for it if he was in the US or abroad.)


>
>
>Regarding Environmental activists:  They are irrational.  Nothing less
than
>a total ban on all collection and possession of anything found in the
>natural environment will satisfy them.  Don't try to appease them, just
>oppose them!

(Actually it's more the legislature with House or State doing favors for
each other helping to pass bills with no knowledge of what their doing.
Been bumping heads at the state capital for years with these guys. It's a
do me a favor routine rather then the true intent of a bill. There was a
study done by the Waikiki Aquarium where the results were natural
disasters were the main cause of reef destruction. After Hurricane Iwa hit
Hawaii the committee estimated it would take mother nature 75yrs for
nature to repair/replace the damage that was done. Nothing man could do
can equal a major natural disaster.)


>
>Rich Pierce
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2