|
Post by mygala on Oct 7, 2014 23:27:37 GMT -8
Yes, even photography is problematic these days in the US: all natural features on National Forest land are copyrighted by the government, so it's illegal to publish photos taken on NF lands without permission from the Forest Service! I think you're referring to a proposal that the National Park Service had put in the Federal Register a couple of weeks ago. If it's approved it will require commercial entities, like film crews and professional photographers on photo shoots, to get a Special Purpose permit for use on specified NPS lands.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Oct 30, 2013 17:35:27 GMT -8
An easy place to start is CITES.org, even if aren't looking for CITES species. On their website, they have area calle "National Contacts and Information". Clicking on that gives you a list of the countries that are party to CITES. There are names, phone numbers, addresses, and other contact information. In general, for non-CITES information I start with the Enforcement Authorities in the country I'm looking at. They are usually the ones who will arrest you, so they are the first priority in my mind. Next would be the Scientific Authority. For instance, Kenya: Scientific Authorities / Autoridades Científicas / Autorités scientifiques 1 Kenya Wildlife Service P.O. Box 40241 – 00100 NAIROBI Tel: +254 (20) 60 08 00; 60 23 45; 60 37 92 Fax: + 254 (20) 60 37 92/4 Email: cites @ kws.go.ke; pomondi @ kws.go.ke; skasiki @ kws.go.ke Web: www.kws.go.ke 2 National Museums of Kenya (NMK) P.O. Box 40658 – 00100 NAIROBI Tel: + 254 (20) 374 21 31/2/3/4; 374 21 61/2/3/4 Fax: + 254 (20) 374 14 24 Email: bkhayota @ museums.or.ke; dgnmk @ museums.or.ke Enforcement Authority / Autoridad de observancia / Autorité de lutte contre la fraude 1 Kenya Wildlife Service Deputy Director, Security P.O BOX 40241-00100 NAIROBI Tel: +254 (20) 60 08 00; 60 23 45 Fax: +254 (20) 60 37 92 Email: security @ kws.go.ke; licensing @ kws.go.ke Japan: Enforcement Authorities / Autoridades de observancia / Autorités de lutte contre la fraude 1 Ministry of the Environment Wildlife Division Nature Conservation Bureau 1-2-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100-8975 Tel: +81 (3) 55 21 82 84 Fax: +81 (3) 35 81 70 90 2 Ministry of Finance Customs Clearance Division Customs and Tariff Bureau 3-1-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku TOKYO Tel: +81 (3) 35 81 41 11 (ext. 2534) Fax: +81 (3) 52 51 21 25 3 Resources and Environment Research Division Fisheries Agency Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 1-2-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100-8907 Tel: +81 (3) 35 02 84 87 Fax: +81 (3) 35 02 16 82 4 National Police Agency Director of Economic Crimes Investigation Community Safety Bureau 1-2 Kasumigaseki 2-chome Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100-8974 Tel: +81 (3) 35 81 01 41 (ext. 3391) Fax: +81 (3) 35 81 93 35
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Sept 6, 2013 0:03:56 GMT -8
The somewhat good news is that what you are having issue with are actually regulations, not laws. Laws are made by congress, and in the current political climate, I doubt whether there is the will to change anything.
However, regulations are set by the agencies, as their interpretation of how to enforce the laws that congress has written. These are easier to change. A good start would be to find a sympathetic Senator or Congressman. One politician on your side could apply pressure to an agency like USDA to loosen up certain laws that don't directly conflict with their mission.
You'd think with the hundreds of politicians (and their aides) in Washington, that there would be at least one butterfly enthusiast.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Jul 2, 2013 17:32:37 GMT -8
You do not need a permit to own CITES listed species. Only to trade in them internationally. CITES is just a treaty organization, not an actual law enforcement organization. The "teeth", if you will, of CITES is in the wildlife law enforcement agencies of the various parties. Here in the US, it's the USFWS (although USDA and CBP also enforce CITES, because they are also customs type, law enforcement agencies). CITES Appendix II and III permits are export permits issued by the exporting country. CITES Appendix I is so restrictive that it requires both the export permit from the exporting country and an import certificate from the importing country.
People get other wildlife laws, like the Endangaered Species Act, confused with CITES. The ESA does prohibit the possession of certain items under some conditions. The other confusing law (at least here in the US) is the Lacey Act. A CITES violation could lead to a Lacey Act violation.
As far as older "Pre-CITES" materials, they need no certificates for ownership. But if you wish to trade them in international commerce, you still need a "Pre-CITES" certificate that attests to the fact that it was harvested before the CITES treaty was ratified. So really, in essence, you still need a CITES certificate, it's just that this one say "Pre-CITES". The Management Authority is supposed to determine whether you claim to the age of the item is true. In actuality, sometimes all they require is an affadavit from you for their records. It depends on the item and the country.
It gets confusing when you have more than one law at play. If you had a leopard skin the was from the 1950's, you could trade it internationally with a valid Pre-CITES certificate. But Leopards are also protected under the ESA, so if you tried to buy one from France and have it imported into the US, it would be seized because it's still covered by the ESA here. It has to be over 100yrs old to be exempt from that law. I find it all very confusing sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 17, 2013 17:00:37 GMT -8
Alright, I understand that, yes, these praries harbor many good species of butterflies, but what good does that do me if I can't collect them??? As I said, NOONE can kick me out of there as it is PUBLIC property...so it is not a question of ethics, but of legality...and even at that, it is still ethical to collect on public land. Quintin Actually, I'm afraid you are in error. Just because it is "public" land has nothing to do with your legal access to it. Most major airports are built on public land, try to collect off the end of a runway, see where that gets you. Those "weeds" might actually be legally protected plants. Damaging them, even if it's on "public land" can still be a crime, even if you aren't trespassing. You don't have a legal right to go wherever you like, nor is there a constitutional provision to collect butterflies. I truly hope that you didn't show the callous indifference and arrogance there, that you've exhibited here.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 10, 2013 21:59:06 GMT -8
...and besides, there are no "no trespassing" signs anywhere and many people go into these no mow zones... What? Do you expect me to go into the already established praries in the insectorium and at Meadowbrook park which are full of ticks and get lime disease just to please one idiot? I don't think so...and frankly, if collecting butterflies means ruining a few weeds, I am willing to do this... Quintin Depending on local or state laws, the folks restoring the native plants aren't always required to post no trespassing signs. Just because you don't see a sign, it doesn't mean that you can collect where ever you like. And, if it's like some of the areas in my state, where they're spending quite a lot of time and money, trying to re-establish native prairie plants, ...I can assure you, they'd be just as willing to arrest you for tresspass and vandalism as you would be to collect there. Even if the police or wildlife officers don't arrest you, they can be very annoying and could effectively ruin an otherwise good day of collecting. In the end, conflict like this doesn't serve either side. It makes everybody look silly and churlish. Remember, people are already quick to label collectors in a negative way, please don't give them more material to work with. Ask the person where the boundaries are of the planted area. Show him a little respect, and that you're willing to work with him. Just like we hate to hear people say "It's just an insect...", botanists cringe when people say "It's just a plant..." which is exactly the kind of vibe I'm getting from you. In the scheme of things, you have a wide variety of places to collect, those plants are extremely limited in where they can grow. The rural world is full of mowers and ruminants.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Dec 19, 2012 22:51:41 GMT -8
From the Federal point of view (USFWS), legally possessed CITES II wildlife can be traded both interstate and intrastate with no legal encumbrance. That is, as long as it is legal within the state laws of the states involved.
You should be good with the Dynastes. Addtionally, since it was so recently listed, much of what is here in the US is pre-CITES, so even buying it with plans for exporting it shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Dec 5, 2012 15:49:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Oct 21, 2012 10:24:17 GMT -8
That's interesting!!! I still believe that the whole CITES concept is flawed since CITES are only interested in the protection of species, rather than habitats. How can you protect a species without protecting its habitat?!?! As a matter of fact, a lot of species became extinct due to loss of habitat without ever making it to CITES appendices. And a lot of CITES-listed species are and will still be traded through the black market as poachers will keep on hunting species for money, especially outside reserves. Reserves and protected areas are the only solutions for effective protection. With reference to the change in P. hospiton, I believe that its protection has always been unwarranted. There are lots of other not so beautiful butterflies which deserve stricter protection than hospiton & apollo for example. Take a look at what is happening in Morocco for example where overgrazing is bringing many species on the verge of extinction!! Habitat protection is the only solution. Otherwise in my opinion CITES is just a waste of resources. CITES is just one tool. You can't fault it because it doesn't solve every problem. It was never planned that it would help preserve habitat. That is a problem for the range countries. You are mostly right, you can't preserve a species without habitat (although some zoos seem to try). CITES helps non-range countries preserve species, especially in situations where the range country can't (or won't) protect it's own wildlife. In those situations, there may also be a need to control poaching and over collection. There is plenty of habitat for rhinos and elephants, but their numbers have continued to drop precipitously. The control of the illegal trade has been shown to have a definite effect on ivory poaching. Modern conservation requires that species be protected on every front. CITES (like every approach) has limited utility. It does regulate the legal trade in the listed species, and it has had a significant impact on the illegal trade in others. No one, thinks it's perfect, but it's certainly better than just sitting on your hands and hoping that the illegal trade in wildlife will regulate itself.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Oct 19, 2012 18:42:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Oct 3, 2012 20:01:36 GMT -8
As jshuey stated, in the US, there is a personal baggage exemption. It allows you to even bring in CITES II insects. They just need to be declared on your customs form. If you ship them, there is no exemption and you need that CITES.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Sept 19, 2012 19:08:20 GMT -8
Having armed police officers hasn't stopped crime or cop-killers in the US. If it works for the UK (and apparently most UK police officers prefer it that way), then I think they should continue. The two young officers that were killed, were apparently lured there with a false burglary report. Their gender had no bearing on the outcome. Two male officers would, in all likelihood have been shot as well.
I think that in lieu of guns, they might consider ballistic armor for their officers. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Sept 14, 2012 16:49:49 GMT -8
No, it's not illegal to import live in to the US.
It's also not necessarily cheap, but there are folks out there that seem to find it worth their while.
It just takes some patience, organization and perhaps the help of a good broker.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Sept 13, 2012 18:22:38 GMT -8
Unless the species involved are specifically addressed in the importing state laws, or unless the species is specifically addressed by USDA regulations, or unless the species in question is a USFWS listed Injurious Species, there should be no problems. Just generically transferring one species from state to state is not illegal. But again, some importing states (like FL or CA) have some pretty serious laws about bringing non-natives in. Most other states don't address it. With the species and states you mentioned, I don't think you'll have any problems.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Aug 5, 2012 5:27:29 GMT -8
Well done, very interesting and informative, yet still accessible.
Looking forward to subsequent chapters.
|
|