Your Reptile and Amphibian Resource and Information Site

Back to Uromastyx Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area  

Uromastyx Forum

Bruno Bear   Jbreddawg   Motherconfessor   Motherconfessor   Bruno Bear   Motherconfessor   Syzurp  
 Member  Message


Bruno Bear
View Profile

 CITES Uromastyx

I dont know how true this is but on another forum it has been posted that Uromastyx, species mentioned were Mali’s. These are now on the CITES list, which means the end of WC imports. I did a quick search of the CITES lists and it only stated Uromastyx, not individual sub. species so whether it applies to all species I dont know.
CITES = Convention on International Trades in Endangered Species. for those who didnt know.

This is supposed to have come from Deer Fern site, I cannot confirm this.

If this is the case, which I personally welcome, will see the end of sick uro’s being sold in petstores.
Once existing supplies have dried up, we will see big increases in the prices and fewer on sale.

We already have strict controls here in the UK and with the addition of the new Animal Welfare Bill that came into force just over a year ago, the selling, transporting and husbandry of animals is much stricter than a lot of other countries.

You may wish to check this out, as it applies to the USA.

01/02/09  05:39pm


View Profile

  Message To: Bruno Bear   In reference to Message Id: 1925096

 CITES Uromastyx

Thats actually good to hear . It will certainly promote captive breeding , will end the petstore death uros being sold "what petstore will want to sell a 3-5 hundred dollar uro" And what parent will buy their little Susie an expensive pet . They will go back to hamsters .
Only the "serious" person who will hopefully do their research first will be purchasing these expensive captive bred uros .
Maybe with time, more people will breed and prices will come down on good quality animals !
Ok, just my rant.. Carry on now lol

01/02/09  05:51pm


View Profile

  Message To: Bruno Bear   In reference to Message Id: 1925096

 CITES Uromastyx


I dont know how true this is but on another forum it has been posted that Uromastyx, species mentioned were Mali’s. These are now on the CITES list, which means the end of WC imports.

Uromastyx have been governed by CITES for 30+ years- I do not know of any animal that isn’t. Uromastyx are appendix II but export quotas on a few species have become stricter over the years.

Is someone suggesting that uromastyx as a genus (or even individual species) have been changed from appendix II to appendix I?

I really do not think that this is the case as I am fairly certain I would have heard something about this. Perhaps there is some confusion on a specific country ban (not uncommon) or maybe someone is getting a little confused on details?

01/02/09  09:09pm


View Profile

  Message To: Motherconfessor   In reference to Message Id: 1925218

 CITES Uromastyx


This is supposed to have come from Deer Fern site, I cannot confirm this.

I have found nothing regarding this CITES mention on the DFF website. Let me take a guess as to what this might be about as you specifically mention Maliensis.

As noted above in my last post, quotas may be placed on specific animals and most of the time this comes from the origin/export country itself with a little pressure from CITES.

If CITES has a concern about a particular animal and/or the number of exports- they may request that a country take a look at this and report back to them with details on numbers and how exports impact this species. This report typically includes a country reevaluate a quota.

After shaking a finger for a year or two (or three) for a country failing to report, CITES may actually do something and suspend trade all together with that country (there are other reasons for suspension as well) or trade on a specific species they were asked to report on.

In the case of maliensis, CITES has been shaking a finger for a couple years at Mali asking them to provide a report on uromastyx dispar. I think the high export quota (30,000 annually) had a lot to do with this. Well, a couple years after originally requesting this report and the deadline passing with no report, they finally suspended trade on Uromastyx dispar from Mali this past fall.

There are six countries listed as distribution countries for dispar and although the origin country on most exports is typically shown as Mali, I am not certain that one of the other distribution countries that do not have trade restrictions would be prevented from exporting under the dispar label by using their country of origin.

I personally do not place a lot of faith in CITES as a successful regulating body as too much is left up to the exporting country (many third world) on a ‘trust’ basis with expectation of the country overseeing most aspects including proper labeling and exports. There are so many ways to get around the little bit of actual regulation that exists that unless the exporting country is ‘honest’ and the import country both honest and alert, CITES can become (in my mind), almost a joke. In my mind, CITES is only as good as the quality of enforcement of the importing country.

There are many examples of why I feel this way including (but not limited to) getting around wild caught export quotas by simply shipping species under a ‘captive bred, farm raised, ranch raised’, label. It is up to the exporting country to regulate this (can you say- ‘conflict of interest’) and momma CITES does not oversee any of this such as requiring inspections or even verification of these so called ‘farms’.

Another crack in the foundation (in my mind) concerns the comment I made above that dispar are noted to exist in six countries. Dispar is the species and maliensis is the subspecies. Certain subspecies might be less common than others such as more maliensis existing than flavifasciata. The subspecies maliensis is not thought to exist in all of these six countries but there is nothing to prevent countries (lets say a next door neighbor of suspended Mali) from exporting maliensis under a dispar label.

This is how macfadyeni sometimes arrive in this country. Somalia (listed by Wilms as the only country of origin for this species) has been suspended for years and yet we sometimes see shipments of macfadyeni via ethiopia under the label ocellata. While macfadyeni are still referred to under Wilms generic Ocellata ‘Complex’ grouping (probably not for long), Wilms’s (used as resource by CITES) position is that macfadyeni is not a subspecies of ocellata but a separate species. Then how can Ethiopia get away with exporting macfadyeni? Because there are a couple reports of ‘ocellata’ being seen in Ethiopia and the macfadyeni are coming from Ethiopia under an ocellata label. Curiously, one of the few references to ocellata being seen in Ethiopia comes from the Ethiopia’s CITES authority but I have not found reference to the particular species or subspecies. I have no clue whether this report was detailing a sighting of U o ocellata (more likely than others) or another uromastyx that is currently a subspecies or at one time suspected to be connected in one way or another to the ocellata species. Now let’s put aside the conflict of interest with this country being ranked as one of the poorest in the world and an estimated annual per capita of $100 (US) and assume that Ethiopia does actually have ocellata of some sort. Remember how CITES uses Wilms as a resource and Wilms stance is that macfadyeni is a separate species from ocellata (DNA work from 2005 and 2007 support this) and Ethiopia is not shown as a range for macfadyeni (actually no country is as the species does not exist with CITES)? Then how is Ethiopia able to export macfadyeni? Ever hear the expression if it looks like a duck sounds like a duck it is a duck? Well, if it looks like ocellata, it will pass for ocellata. Given the fact that no separate species is listed for madfadyeni, it will likely continue to come in under the ocellata label.

Even if the importing country has some strict regulation and a wise representative checking the incoming shipment on a group of macfadyeni, nothing will likely be done as according to CITES, the species doesn’t exist and ocellata of some sort have been seen in Ethiopia so all is kosher. A few years back when researching CITES I was officially told by a rather high ranking CITES official in Switzerland that the importing countries have no reason not to ‘trust’ the exporting countries labels. A local representative of the group that oversees CITES regulation here in the states corroborated this by suggesting they go by the label unless something severely stands out. I was given the scenario of a tiger being labeled as a lion as an example of something that would likely be caught.

Ethiopia can ship any subspecies (and evidently similar species) under the generic ocellata label so even if macfadyeni only truly exist in banned Somalia, all they need to do is get them across the border and someone label the CITES tag ‘ocellata’. Ethiopia simply fills out the label as the country of origin for the macfads and the shipment goes right through as long as it doesn’t conflict with the export quota (500).

In any event, Mali is working on their report and will likely have it done soon (common with countries that are finally suspended) so although the import of wild caught dispar trade might slow a bit because of Mali, I do not think that this will last very long. Mali will likely pacify CITES by doing something like changing their 30,000 quota to 20,000.

I am sure places like DFF will sell a lot more imported maliensis labeled as farm raised with people passing around the idea that there will be an end to all wild caught maliensis imports soon. However, I do not see this as happening and I think the likelihood of wild caught geyri being severely restricted is more likely. Geyri exports were set at 30,000+ thousand for the first several years and then dropped significantly after that with the quota going down to 5000 and zero for the two major exporting countries. Dispar has consistently stayed at 30,000 (one of the reasons I am sure CITES mandated report) so my guess is that the quota might drop but trade will continue.

This is probably more CITES information than anyone wanted and this topic does get my blood pressure up a bit so I will end it here with my speculation on what Bruno Bear might be referring to in his/her post.

Kudos to the countries that actually create and enforce more restrictive regulation such as Egypt and progressive regulation and enforcement such as the EU wildlife Trade Regulation.

01/03/09  11:13am


Bruno Bear
View Profile

  Message To: Motherconfessor   In reference to Message Id: 1925474

 CITES Uromastyx


First may I thank you for such a detailed post, it must have taken you some time to research and put into words on here.
Thanks to you I now have a greater insight on how CITES works.
I go along with what you believe to be the real reason for such a post, that is the quota’s have been reduced, hence the reduction in availability.

Here in the UK, DEFRA (Dept of Enviroment, Food and Rural Affairs) are bringing out new legislation or should I say change existing legislation, in the regulations called COTES (Control of Trade in Endangered Species). This is to regulate imports and the keeping of those animals on the CITES list.
It should have been brought in last summer but due to the preasure brought by Reptile Keepers here, it is still on the table.
The new COTES is still a threat to reptile keeping in the UK and we are continuing the fight.

Let me give just one example.
BRB’s (Brazilian Rainbow Boas) the import of these has totally stopped, so anything for sale is CB......BUT.... the catch. Any sold has to have the paperwork stating it’s CB along with the parents and those before them and even further back
Now DEFRA have never ever issued certificates saying they have been imported legally, yet you cannot sell BRB’s unless you have these certificates which you cannot get.
Under the COTES keepers who sell could run the risk of 5 years in jail and all their animals confiscated, plus being charged for the upkeep while investigations take place.
It is totally impossible to prove they are CB from CB etc. Justice gone mad you are "guilty until proved innocent" when we all thought you were "innocent till proved guilty" I cannot ratify this but believe is has been taken to, or at least threatened to, the EU Human Rights Court.

At least enough keepers have "stood up to be counted" and make DEFRA think again, all we are asking is for an amnesty for reptiles already in the country.

In this country "Companion Animals" (we dont call them pets anymore due to political correctness B.S.)
Cats take the top spot, it is now believed that Reptiles have pushed Dogs into 3rd place with well over 5 million, followed by Fish and Furries.
At least Reptiles Keepers have now realized the serious threat to our hobby and taking a stand.

Between CITES and COTES, at least we are seeing less WC for sale here which can only be a good thing.

01/03/09  02:11pm


View Profile

  Message To: Bruno Bear   In reference to Message Id: 1925577

 CITES Uromastyx


” First may I thank you for such a detailed post, it must have taken you some time to research and put into words on here”

Actually, it took very little research as most of the information I used was from past research. I frequently look at CITES to keep current on who is importing/exporting, suspensions, and quotas so a lot of this data was already in my head. The only thing I had to actually look up for the post was the year the geyri quota dropped significantly and the per capita income for my Ethiopia point. In fact, I must confess to being lazy today and NOT double checking statements such as the years on the DNA research I quoted. I am 99% sure that the Amer’s work was in 2005 and Wilms in 2007 but I typically double check dates prior to posting rather than going strictly by memory and today I was lazy. Well, I did look up the geyri quota and per capita income figures for Ethiopia so I am not completely guilty.


”I go along with what you believe to be the real reason for such a post, that is the quota’s have been reduced, hence the reduction in availability.”

My original post was suggesting that perhaps someone was confusing a quota or ban but after rereading your original post and noticing that the concern was centered around maliensis, my last post suggested that perhaps CITES finally taking action on Mali suspending trade of dispar is more likely what everyone is talking about.


”Between CITES and COTES, at least we are seeing less WC for sale here which can only be a good thing.”

And you are also a member following the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation which appears to prompt countries to independently adopt stricter measures.

01/03/09  03:55pm


View Profile

  Message To: Motherconfessor   In reference to Message Id: 1925631

 CITES Uromastyx

Sorry to chime in so late on this conversation but that was not posted on DFF. I have been e-mailing Doug about buying a couple pairs of breeders Ornate, Mali, and Moroccan and that in one of the e-mails he briefly covered the fact that CITES in August of 08 was no longer allowing Mali to export wc Mali Uromastyx...

Here is the quote from Doug straight copy/pasted from my e-mail "Just so you know - Mali was closed down by CITES in August so Mali’s should be going up in price this year (no imports to keep the price artificially low)."


Sorry if this led to confusion Bruno and Motherconfessor

01/04/09  12:19pm

Back to Uromastyx Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area