|
Post by mygala on Jun 15, 2012 19:55:31 GMT -8
If you are just sending dead insects (or whatever wildlife items/products) to Canada out of the goodness of your heart (...and getting no recompense for them), then it is a personal shipment. If it's worth less than $250 then you don't need to file a 3-177. I'd do it anyway though, as it costs nothing since it's a personal shipment. Filing covers your butt, somewhat, if it gets stopped.
If you are selling, bartering, trading, etc any of the material you are exporting, then it is a commercial export. You'll need a license AND need to file a 3-177. The license is $100 and an inspection will cost $93 (provided it's routine and there are no protected species in the shipment).
The $250 exemption limit only applies to personal shipments.
If it leaves the US without all of that, then it's considered an illegal export. Environment Canada will seize it if they find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Jun 2, 2012 8:11:16 GMT -8
Yes, all I seem to read about obtaining foreign permits is either "its impossible" or "its easy". I know that I can look up the offices for some countries on the US CITES website, but how does a private collector go about actually getting the permits? I'm sure there is much paperwork to fill out, but what reasoning is going to flag you for denial, do you need affiliation with a university in every case, what are some specifics? Each country has it's own criteria for granting or denying CITES, but the basic framework is laid out in the wording of the CITES treaty. You can contact the Management Authority in whichever country you want to export from. You shouldn't need to be affiliated with an educational or professional organization unless you are trying to export a CITES I species. From my point of view, some countries make it easier than others by having websites in English. Germany is a good example of that. In the US, the CITES criteria are laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 23. If you have specific questions about specific countries, you can post them. However, sometimes as a private collector, you might best be served by hiring a professional broker to obtain the licenses and permits and engage a shipper for you. It always comes down whether the associated cost makes it worth your while. As you can see in previous posts, it can harder to get a collecting permit than it is to get a CITES permit to export.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 22, 2012 20:59:41 GMT -8
So the message I get, is that it's okay to break the laws you don't agree with. That's ethical?
With that attitude, I can't imagine why any customs officials would even bother to inspect you or your shipments, let alone treat collectors as criminals.
My slightly incredulous sarcasm aside, I do agree that in many countries, there is are varying degrees of corruption. However, I don't see how illegal collecting and the resulting smuggling puts you at any moral or ethical disadvantage from the corrupt officials. You are knowingly breaking the law for your own selfish reasons.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 21, 2012 19:22:15 GMT -8
I find it interesting that so many people have so many ways to break the local laws and hide the fact that they are doing so. The obvious lack of ethics aside, I find it ironic that the authorities are the only ones referred to as "corrupt" in this thread. ...and still people wonder why Law Enforcement and Customs Authorities treat legal collectors as criminals. In answer to Wolf's question, you need an export permit/license from their Deparment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) office. For contact numbers of any country, I usually look on the CITES website under the National Contacts. Even for non-CITES animals, the contacts are usually the same. For the Philippines: www.cites.org/cms/index.php/lang-en/component/cp/?country=PH
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 5, 2012 8:02:22 GMT -8
CITES enforcement was not the point that the OP made. There is no prohibition of possession of CITES I species in the US.
What the CITES Secretariat thinks might have some (but not a lot of) bearing on how USFWS enforces the ESA, so the letters from the Scientific Services Team (if you had copies of the originals) might be good to show USFWS if they came knocking on your door, ...however likely or unlikely that might be.
It was enforcement under the ESA regarding P. hermeli that the OP was concerned with.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 3, 2012 17:32:58 GMT -8
Some people confuse National Forests with National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges. Just be sure to get those straight, the laws are different in each.
You sound like you know the difference, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.
Good luck collecting!
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Apr 26, 2012 17:05:57 GMT -8
Has anyone ever taken this course, or the California Academy of Sciences Ant Course?
It sounds like it could be a great experience.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Apr 24, 2012 20:49:31 GMT -8
Very nice photos Clark! It's hard to pick favorites. Each species deserved a shout out! I found myself going back to 7,27,31,57,60,61,88,92 repeatedly. I also found the series from 32-40 to be very interesting. Well done!
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Apr 15, 2012 22:50:10 GMT -8
Yes, you need to declare. Shipping in to or out of the US.
No, you don't need an Import/Export license unless you are a commercial shipper. The caveat is that if you are shipping large numbers, they may assume you are shipping in commercial quantities. (For instance: You may need to document why you need 25 examples of the same species.)
Trading/barter, as long as it's non-commercial, should not require an I/E license.
You probably won't be dealing with any Agents. Most of the USFWS you'll deal with are Wildlife Inspectors. You can look up the regs yourself from the citations I quoted in earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 30, 2012 20:59:25 GMT -8
Well twas only a matter of time before hermeli was protected under CITES, big, showy species that it is, as stated before there are lots of little brown jobs in more need of protection than hermeli, of course its ridiculous but if you are waiting for common sense to prevail the you are going to be disappointed, it would be no hardship at all to allow monitored captive breeding programmes of hermeli/chikae which would satisfy commercial demand and conservation efforts but I must stop now, I am starting to make sense and we cant have that. What you suggest is not out of the question. Normally, CITES I animals cannot be used in the course of commercial activities (bought, sold, bartered, etc). However, CITES allows for the breeding of captive, Appendix I animals in registered facilities. If someone wanted to take the time, trouble and expense to set up such a facility and establish a breeding program for CITES I butterflies, then, then those butterflies would be considered CITES II animals and they would be able to be bought and sold internationally with valid CITES certificates. Here is the CITES Resolution: www.cites.org/eng/res/11/11-14.phpUnfortunately, this would only apply to folks outside of the United States. Because, even though CITES would give these animals a CITES II exemption, they would still be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act within the US. The USFWS would have to issue a Special Rule under 50 CFR 17.47 to allow the import or use of ESA insects. This is unlikely to happen until someone actually goes out there and does it. It's happened with commercially raised crocodilians in Asia. Their skins are legally imported as leather goods, clothing and other items. So, it's definitely not out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 28, 2012 17:49:09 GMT -8
I have just heard that the USFW are seriously considering prosecuting people in the USA for possessing P. hermeli. They believe that the separate species name is just a ploy to avoid hermeli falling under CITES appendix 1 as a ssp. of P. chikae. Personally I believe that hermeli is a subspecies of P. chikae - Thanos probably disagrees though -, as published by Page & Treadaway (Dec 2003), although very many collectors will be unaware of this work or the status of hermeli as a ssp. of chikae. I think it would be rather difficult for anyone to be prosecuted for owning a specimen legally imported before December 2003, since up until that time no-one had published a work stating that the two are conspecific. I would recommend that if the USFW decide that Papilio hermeli should be included in CITES appendix 1 for US regulatory purposes they should put out a statement to such effect and allow registration of all specimens in the USA prior to that date, so that everyone will know that any future imports would be regarded as illegal without CITES permits. As a non-US citizen living on the other side of the World the USFW don't have to listen to my suggestions, but I think it would be the best solution to the problem. Adam Cotton. I'm not at all familiar with the specific taxonomics of P. chikae and whether P. hermeli is a valid subspecies. It seems that all of this hinges on that fact. If hermeli is a valid subspecies, then it would be covered under the same laws that pertain to chikae. If it's not considered the same, then it's not even protected under CITES. I don't know of anything that has prompted a new look at this species from USFWS. It would help me understand the circumstances if I knew what your source was referring to. Could there have been a recent determination that hermeli is a a subspecies (or maybe a synonym) of chikae? Otherwise, I'm not sure what would prompt a new enforcement priority. I know that some families of animals have an "ultimate" taxonomic body that makes the determination of things like species names and the validity of subspecies. For instance, with spiders, it's the World Spider Catalog, maintained by Dr. Norman Platnick and the American Museum of Natural History. Is there a similar governing organizaion for Lepidoptera? In all likelihood, that would be the reference that USFWS uses to determine who is species, and who is subspecies. They don't make that determination "in house". If it IS decided that P. hermeli falls under the P. chikae umbrella, then they are bound by law to give hermeli the same protections as are afforded chikae. In this particular case, CITES cannot be used by USFWS as a basis to prohibit possession of this (either) species (subspecies). CITES only deals with import/export. I do recall that there were a couple of states that prohibit possession of CITES I species, so that might be important here too. Since we are dealing with the maximum protection afforded by two different laws, P. chikae is going to be difficult to obtain and keep legally in the US, under any circumstances. Since P. chikae is listed under the Endangered Species Act as Endangered (since 1/14/93), there are some things to be aware of.... Any specimens obtained after that are prohibited from import or export, they may not be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, nor may they be sold or offered for sale. Specimens that were obtained prior to the listing date, but less than 100yrs old, can be possessed, as well as imported or exported, but it may NOT be bought or sold or "held in the course of a commercial activity". Specimens over 100 yrs old are exempt. However, the onus is upon the holder to prove the age and status of the specimen. References: Pre-Act Wildlife ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:2.0.1.1.1.1.1.4&idno=50Prohibitions Under the ESA: ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:2.0.1.1.1.3.1.1&idno=50Antique Articles: ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:1.0.1.2.8.2.7.12&idno=50
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 28, 2012 16:48:13 GMT -8
I can't find the part that says there is no inspection fee for a personal import. I've had 50CFR13 on hand for years, and just went through 50CFR14, but don't see specifically where personal, non-commercial imports are exempt from fees. If you can help, I appreciate it. Sorry to be so long in the reply! The fee schedule is not in the CFR's, it's laid out on the USFWS web page for Importers/Exporters: www.fws.gov/le/PubBulletins/12-15-11InspectionFeeIncrease.pdfNon-commercial shipments are also called Personal shipments on the declarations. For personal shipments, the following charges apply: Routine (non-living, non-protected) noncommercial shipment $0 Live, non-protected, noncommercial cargo shipment $93 Non-live, protected, noncommercial cargo shipment $93 Any noncommercial shipment imported or exported using the mail, traveling as a passenger or on foot, or as an importer/exporter using their personal vehicle $0 "Live" shipment is pretty explanatory. "Protected" means a shipment which contains species that require a certificate from CITES, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, etc. This normally does not include foreign export certificates. For example, imports of aquatic species from the Phillipines require an export certificate from their Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (a BFAR certificate). Those are not considered "Protected" by USFWS. Hope that answers your question. Edit: I thought the fee table had been removed from the CFR's, I was in error. The fees ARE in CFR's at 50 CFR 14.94(h)
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 15, 2012 23:37:21 GMT -8
They are listed under CITES Appendix II as of 2010.
So they can be shipped internationally, they just need a CITES certificate from the export country.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Feb 10, 2012 16:01:45 GMT -8
I think what mygala wants to say is that when you manage to illegaly get the specimen to Mars;) and you later sell it from Mars, the specimen is from an American legislation legal again. They are not interested what was before, they are only interested what happens the moment when it gets over to US. Claude, you are correct. We also have to accept, at least the possiblity, that there may be breeding colonies of some of some protected animals in countries that are not within their normal range. In fact, some of this breeding has been going on longer than the laws have been in effect. The laws are usually written to allow these animals to be "grandfathered" in, as they say. At the time most of these laws were written, there was really no way do identify the legal animals from the ones that have been "laundered" through a third country. It may be possible now with DNA technology, but it is likely not feasible in many cases. ...like for a single insect sold on eBay. An Amur Tiger might be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Feb 10, 2012 1:44:05 GMT -8
I don't know what texts you are referring to. I was just using China as an illustration.
I really don't know where the insects are being sold from on eBay, but that would be a key determinant as to whether it was a legal transaction or not. Without more specific information, I can't be accurate in my answer.
Again, the EU Annexes are laws for domestic trade only. Unless an EU country is party to the import/export, the Annexes have no bearing.
If the EU wanted to control international trade, they would only have to get the species listed under one of the CITES Appendices. If that were to happen, then the C. cerdo would be protected in all countries that are signatories of CITES.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the EU annexes have little effect outside of the EU, unless the importing country has a law like the Lacey Act. Most countries do not.
|
|