Reptile & Amphibian Forums

About a couple of months ago, a self-proclaimed CITES expert indicated that you are in danger of being prosecuted for owning an animal in violation of CITES if you don't have a copy of the original documentation from the original ancestors of your captive bred frogs. This was listed on another frog site, but the guy said that you shouldn't buy frogs from anyone who doesn't have said papers.

First, let me say that I did a little research on CITES and realize that even captive bred offspring of animals imported in violation of CITES are unlawful to own under the Lacey Act. However, I really doubt the "expert" nature of the opinion given.

Nonetheless, I was wondering if I could see a show of hands from breeders who have the accompanying CITES papers for their breeders or the ancestors of their breeders. Somehow, I doubt that getting a copy of such a thing along with your froglets would be as easy as he made it out to be--I really don't think even most serious breeders have these things.
-----
Homer W. Faucett III, esq.
Purveyor of Trivialities and Fine Nonsense

CITES deals with international trade (Convention on International Trade of Endaagered Species) and does not apply to us having them in the United states. CITES only applies to us when we attempt to take the animals out of the country and into another. We are legally allowed to have any species as there are no laws saying we can't. Anyone else have any input?
-Bill J
-----

I import plants with my CITES permits (yes I have them) and I have to agree with you. The permits are for importation not ownership. It is legal to buy a frog from someone in the US without a permit. (in most cases, there are some rare frogs from places such as Columbia, that doesn't allow export, I can't comment on those)

joe
-----
3.0.1 Tinc Patricias
0.0.2836 Pea Aphids
0.0.4392 Springtails
0.0.1842 FruitFlies
0.1.30 Dampwood Termites

Bill,

You are correct that CITES as it is employed by international convention is enforceable only as pertaining to import and export of selected animals (CITES I, II, and III class restrictions). However, federal legislation referred to as the Lacey Act gives full force and effect to international agreements under federal prosecution. Therefore, animals which were brought into the country in violation of CITES remain in violation of CITES, and by application of Lacey, any transport, purchase, or sale of those animals or their offspring is a violation of federal law.

True, the Endangered Species Act is a separate federal law that deals with the domestic trade of endangered animals, but it has its own list of species and acts that are classified as no-no's. However, CITES certainly does have teeth through the Lacey Act here in the U.S.

If you are interested in the text of the Lacey Act, check out http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/lacey.htm .

Of primary importance to this discussion is Section 3372 of the Lacey Act, which states in relevant part: "SECTION 3372. PROHIBITED ACTS

(a) Offenses other than marking offenses

It is unlawful for any person -

(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish
or wildlife or plant taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or
regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law."

Note that you cannot transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any animal in violation of any treaty of the U.S. Since the U.S. is a party to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES--a treaty), posession of any animal that has not been imported properly under CITES is in violation of the Lacey Act. Without this federal analog, enforcement of the treaty would be confined to catching people at the borders where they are smuggled into the country.

So, my question remains. How many breeders here have the paperwork to show that their breeding stock was brought in with the proper CITES documentation? I'm just curious.
-----
Homer W. Faucett III, esq.
Purveyor of Trivialities and Fine Nonsense

As an american I have to ask, is it necessary to prove legality or does the prosecution have to prove non-legality? From a consumer point of view that is, I'm sure it is different for a breeder with a register business.

joe
-----
3.0.1 Tinc Patricias
0.0.2836 Pea Aphids
0.0.4392 Springtails
0.0.1842 FruitFlies
0.1.30 Dampwood Termites

Homer,

Since you are the lawyer on the forum, I believe the info you have uncovered to be true.

Not knowing that a law exists does not mean you are innocent of breaking that law. Ask the vendors who were busted in the Columbus raid!

I do not know of anyone who has the documentaion you are asking about. The one time I have purchased imported/farm raised auratus I was never offered the paperwork on them.

Melis
-----
Quality Captives

Joe,

You bring up an excellent point that was lost on the CITES "expert." In most cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof unless there is a burden shifting provision in the law (of which I have seen no sign of in the legislation). Therefore, the prosecution should have to prove that you own your animals in violation of the Lacey Act.

So, everyone is right that it is not unlawful to buy or sell an animal inside the U.S. borders without a CITES permit (after all, as pointed out, these are just export and/or import permits). However, if the animal you are buying (or even the parents of the animal you are buying) was smuggled into the country illegally, you would technically be in violation of the Lacey Act. Therefore, having a copy of the original CITES permit for the ancestor animal (or the animal itself) would just be a kind of insurance against harrassing prosecution (after all, just charging you and bringing you to trial can be a real pain).

Let's be practical, though. The chances of you being charged are next to nil, especially if you have an animal that was of a species at one point in time regularly brought in under legal methods (azureus, leuc, etc.), and have met with great breeding success. How would anyone make a case against you? That is why I questioned the expert nature of the advice given about having CITES papers. I doubt that most breeders have such documents, and I really doubt that the sky is falling to the point where it would be necessary for you to have such papers (of course, if you have a rarely imported animal, I'd make sure I got the papers).

I wasn't trying to make anyone nervous, I was just wanting to see the realities of the situation. From what I'm hearing here, I had good reason to doubt the advice that was given . . . but it would be a great idea to have these things if they were available. (FYI, now that the jig is up as to what I do for a living . . . none of the preceding should be considered legal advice).
-----
Homer W. Faucett III, esq.
Purveyor of Trivialities and Fine Nonsense

As I understand CITES, only Appendix I requires CITES import and export paperwork. APP II and III only require export paperwork from the country of origin. Dendrobates being Appendix II. Paperwork is also required for re-export.

Check the link below to see what the USFWS has to say about.

If you're worried about animals already in your possesion or captive bred offspring of questionable imports, the The Lacey Act is what you should concern yourself with.

Also check with Mark Pepper or Bill Samples who both deal with import/export of dendrobates quite regularly.

Donn
Link

I know a small handful of people who keep them on hand with them to avoid any hassle as you stated earlier.

Thanks, Justin. Your answer confirms my suspicions, and the lack of responses of people having copies of the paperwork indicates that my initial judgment of the advice I heard was a little over the top (i.e. out of touch with reality).
-----
Homer W. Faucett III, esq.
Purveyor of Trivialities and Fine Nonsense