|
Post by takahe on Apr 18, 2011 3:55:25 GMT -8
For seller/dealer purposes, how old does a collection have to be to be rightly called an "old collection"?
Could specimens collected in 2008 be considered as coming from an old collection?
Bradleigh
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 18, 2011 3:59:09 GMT -8
There is no definition for it.
Very often sellers use the "old collection" thing to sell CITES species without permit. Specimens caught before CITES legislation would not need a permit to be legally sold.
But 2008 is really new, not old at all.
|
|
|
Post by Khalid Fadil on Apr 18, 2011 6:17:51 GMT -8
I've got butterfly specimens salvaged from my uncles collection he made in the 50's. He gave the collection to me when I was a little boy and a few years later, it broke. Luckily none of the specimens were destroyed and I still keep them... in much newer plastic cookie containers.
I guess you could call those old...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Apr 18, 2011 9:42:13 GMT -8
There is a real definition of "old" when it comes to specimens that are protected. Old specifically refers to pre-ratification of laws protecting the species. So, birdwings before 1973 are pre-CITES and "legal". HOWEVER - you can't simply call a specimen old and make it legal! It must first be verified by a Fish and Wildlife officer as legitimately being old, and a certification is issued for legal sale. Verifying insects as old is basically impossible because a specimen from 1800 can look as fresh as one caught yesterday. Yes, labels can be old... but they can be taken from another specimen... Detailed documentation of how the specimen came into your possession is critical for this process. Verification is 100% necessary for legal sale - This process can work easier for larger taxidermy animals, easily dated by condition and "style" of taxidermy.
Anyone can call anything "old", even if it's from 2008. But I can see no reason for this other than fraud.
|
|
|
Post by timoinsects on Apr 18, 2011 11:55:12 GMT -8
most of insects species were not portected by law and won't be forever. so even if a specimen collected in 100years ago for example,and collected by now it can not be called old collection?
how about Dynastes satanus,which was listed to CITES last year? or 2 years ago? i had 2 specimen before that. old collection?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Apr 18, 2011 12:39:15 GMT -8
Well, of course you're right timoinsects - an old bug is old! I guess I implied above that you can't call it as such. My mistake in wording!
But what I was getting at is the term "old collection" is usually used to reassure a buyer (usually falsely) that the specimens are not illegal. I often see this applied to specimens from countries where collecting is now illegal or nearly so (Mexico/Brazil/India). I think "old collection" can only truly be applied and should only be trusted when accompanied by verification other than a promise.
Other than the shady use of the term above - I rarely care if a specimen is old or not, unless it has come from a famous collection or location. Otherwise I worry that an "old" specimen is somehow damaged or lacking data!
Your Dynastes could be called pre-CITES since I guess it's not technically old. However, you still couldn't legally sell it without having a approval from FWS!
|
|
|
vwman
Full Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by vwman on Apr 18, 2011 13:29:48 GMT -8
Chris,
I'm going to give you a hard time here ;D -- but I doubt that he would need anything from FWS if his location is China as it states on his profile. He can buy and sell whatever he wants depending on whether China or the country he is buying from/selling to wants to regulate it within their own laws/policies.
Timo,
Chris is right if you ever wanted to business within the U.S., but a FWS officer verifying anything as "old" that's coming in from another country into the U.S. from anywhere other than a scientific institution or a member of said institution is highly unlikely. Even then that person would need some to have some pretty substantial credentials. It's not like the FWS is in the business of verifying "old" material or handing out verification certificates on a regular basis and they certainly aren't just going to take your word on it. They are more likely to just confiscate it and let you PROVE it's "old" if you want it back.
|
|
|
Post by takahe on Apr 18, 2011 14:30:01 GMT -8
I probably should've stated that I wasn't talking about CITES species. I was talking about 2 Dynastes hercules - one that is missing an entire leg and the other missing a claw, that were both listed as A1 specimens. When I complained, the seller claimed they came from an old collection and that was why they were missing these parts. They were collected in 2008 in Ecuador, which I didn't think seemed very old.
I was trying to be as unspecific as possible with this because it's not my intention to cause any trouble for the seller and get myself sued for slander. I'm just trying to determine if my definition of A1 is very different from that of dealers.
But just out of curiosity now that it's been brought up, is D. satanas CITES 1 or CITES 2?
Bradleigh
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Apr 18, 2011 14:58:23 GMT -8
Some info for those selling TO the US of pre-convention specimens: permit here www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-23.pdfHowever once in the US "CITES imposes no controls on shipments between States or U.S. territories". source: www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/cpc.pdfIf the specimen is pre-ESA a certificate is require for possession, donation or shipment. However "A pre-Act exemption does not apply to wildlife, including parts and products, offered for sale." source: library.fws.gov/IA_Pubs/esa_permits.pdf - interpreted to mean no ESA protected specimen may ever be sold regardless of pre-act exemption. - update: Apparently legally obtained specimens (=pre-act) can be sold within a state to legal residents of that sate unless against state law. Interstate sale (=to a resident of any other state or between states) is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by entoman on Apr 18, 2011 15:35:13 GMT -8
Bradleigh, if by "old" you mean "collected a while ago", then no, it is my opinion that 2008 is not old. I have seen specimens that are nearly 100 years old and in perfect shape. Besides, A1 is not relative to age, but condition. If I have an insect that is crushed and was collected in the year 1800, it is not still A1 simply due to its age. An old specimen, in spite of a few imperfections, is still an interesting thing to have but should be accurately listed with its appropriate quality. But 2008 is not old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2011 16:20:41 GMT -8
Bradleigh, I was given a collection prior to a collector's death. He was a terrific man (Norman Seaborg) and his collection was an honor to acquire. Most all of his material was from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Just so you get an idea of what I term 'old' (not including myself ), his collection is thought of by me as 'old'. I agree with the others that no matter the condition of any specimen new or old, it is the date that matters. Stuff older than 30 years or so would be fairly safe to consider old. Also, I agree that the CITES stuff should be dealt with very carefully no matter the age. Just so you feel our responses are consistent, 2008 is not 'old' at all. Respectfully,
|
|
|
Post by timoinsects on Apr 18, 2011 16:21:18 GMT -8
chinese authorites paied little attention on the business of insects of illegal insects. relatively they care more about china's domestic portected species. only a few (several?) lawsuits for the past 20 years,a few dealers were arrested for dealing/catching portected butterflies,i never saw any problem raised from the a few portected beetles like long arm beetles for example. several small dealers are still selling birdwings butterflies currently openly through internet without any problem and nobody gave them troubles. i never break the law of china. but actually,if just personally collect sample portected sp. at home ,not in bulks or big quantity,don't deal. who knows,so it'll be ok,no problem. D.satanus was listed on CITES based on the suggestion from Colombian authorities in 2009?or 2010, but another edition ,a taiwanese site shows it didn't got through,this suggestion failed. www.wow.org.tw/PROP-ZHT/Prop20.pdf is chinese,though only a few words. this one,british site,said it was listed as CITES-2. www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/species-of-the-day/biodiversity/loss-of-habitat/dynastes-satanas/index.htmlso i don't exactly know whether it is CITES species or not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Apr 18, 2011 16:42:45 GMT -8
|
|