The original intent of ESA legislation was to protect species, foreign or domestic, from decimation from commercial exploitation by over collecting in their native countries and excessive importation into the U.S. The main source of control at the time under the ESA was by making importation and interstate trade within the U.S. in those species illegal. Protection of foreign species within their own countries in the 1970’s was much more difficult as the IUCN was weaker then and CITES was just getting started. The Indian python was subject to over collection within its range and was about the only boid in high demand in the 1970’s. I think there was also serious pressure from the Indian government as well to help protect the species. I think most also believe that a re-evaluation of this species is in order, but don’t hold your breath.

The ESA and CITES list P. m. molurus as endangered. You are correct in that the IUCN Redlist shows Python molurus as Lower Risk/Near Threatened instead of endangered, but if you look closely, you will see that the IUCN listing lumps all species of P. molurus together, so their listing also includes all populations of the burmese python, P. m. bivittatus as well. This would definitely skew the overall status of the species with regards to the IUCN listing. Not that I would disagree however, and I feel that the ESA listing for P.m. molurus is probably not warranted for specimens produced within the U.S. with supporting documentation.

Kelly

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]