Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Does anyone know the average growth of Fly River Turtles in captivity ? Does it take them 6 - 7 yrs to mature , at what size do they mature ? I can only find very limited information online .

In my experience, growth is very slow in captivity (compared to other species in my care). Also, I have seen printed sources that suggest a slow growth.

in animals that have to wait fuh massah to get back from da pen befo dey can eat.

Heh heh, many people are paying money for this species in the U.S., and I frequently wonder what percentage of them actually understand and choose to ignore, or just never knew, that all of those little guys are in violation of federal law.

Just thought I'd toss that note before discussion got any more, personal. Good luck.

If you check the CITES website , it's clearly Appendix 2 and they must be over the 4 inch rule .

The over 4" rule is a USDA regulation and has nothing to do with CITES...

Best regards,

Jeff
-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

Never claimed it was a CITES related law , I just simply said , " It must be over 4 inches "

It is not illegal to buy and sell C. insculpta within the U.S., as they are listed under CITES Appendix II, same as all iguanids, uromastyx spp., Phelsuma spp. and boids, except for those listed to CITES Appendix I, which require federal permits for interstate commerce. You don't see anyone fretting over permits regarding day geckos and mali uromastyx because such are not required, except to bring them into the U.S. from their country of origin and CITES Appendix II allows for a documented number of the listed species to be exported.
As for growth, C. insculpta do not reach sexual maturity until approximately 20 years of age, some sources indicate 25-30 years of age is more likely.
As for the cost of C. insculpta, I have yet to notice an increase in price over recent years here in the U.S. and have actually noticed a decrease in teh price of juvenile specimens.

Best regards,

Jeff
-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

That's correct , but it's sure funny seeing people coming in here posting as if they really know what they are talking about when they are just regurgetating information on what more than likely heard and not read . CHEERS !

The difficulty in Carettochelys legality lies within the range countries, not international import/export regs such as CITES. Of the three range countries, only one permits reptile export - Indonesia. The country works off of a quota system each year. Individual species are permitted to leave in quoted numbers, and these numbers are met by liscensed exporters/dealers.

The problem is that Carettochelys has never been listed on the quota list. Thus, it has never left the country legally (for the U.S. pet trade). This is why any less-than-common, say, Australian lizard is better off having a paper trail once in the U.S. that proves it's of a legal captive-bred origin rather than an appeared-out-of-nowhere specimen. Provided the range country does not permit the given species' export, the U.S. bans its import and ownership (again, without a paper trail).

Interestingly, some species we know so well such as bearded dragons, aussie water dragons and some odatriad goannas have become so numerous in this country that they have "defeated" this federal policy through sheer pervasiveness (kind of like cd burning), since each should require a receipt of origin (tracing ultimate captive parentage stock back to zoo imports, etc.). It sounds crazy, but, it's true, thanks to the fine lines of beauracracy.

An important part to note - the vast majority of Carettochelys coming in are under four inches. We don't see most batagurids or pelomedusids that come into the U.S. in large numbers come in at less than four inches. Why? Those are legally bulk imported. When the animal in question, Carettochelys, comes in oftentimes marked as "tropical fish," you have to wonder. Turtles don't get to come in underneath four inches, in the U.S. The only way I can figure all of these guys eventually being considered legal in this country is if Indonesia eventually puts them onto the quota list. Then some come in legally, and everyone shouts that their animals are from those recent shipments. That's been done before. All the best.

I fail to see the legality problems relating to C. insculpta brought into the U.S. prior to January of this year, since they had yet to be recognized as protected internationally.
You indicated Indonesia as the only range country exporting wild herpetofauna, indicating, unless I was mistaken, that Indonesia maintains its own oversight of such.
Actually, the Indonesian CITES Management Authority regulates such quotas, which is closely monitored, as the Authority must communicate all exports, regarding species amended to CITES appendices, to the Secretariat. Since C. insculpta were not listed to CITES, prior to January 2005, no such quotas were required.
The quota system you indicated is the system developed by CITES and individual countries may join at their own free will. S countries, such as Mexico, have chosen not to participate, so the system you have indicated is indeed relational to CITES and not solely dependant upon country of origin.
Also, New Guinea is known to have issued individual permits allowing for the exportation of C. insculpta prior to January 2005. Even Australia has issued such individual permits, on an extremely limited basis, though I do not believe any of the Australian permits included C. insculpta.
I certainly do agree with you though, as many species have become so numerous in captivity, regulating such on an individual basis would be a mammoth undertaking on behalf of any entity attempting to do such.
I am just beginning to feel a bit irritated, regarding the continued legal diatribe following virtually any posting an individual makes regarding C. insculpta, not as though we are discussing the importation and interstate commerce of Geoclemys hamiltoni, though I do harbor certain concerns, as I do not foresee the captive production of C. insculpta within the private sector for many years to come, while the interest and fascination with the species will only increase the demand, which could lead to legality issues in the very near future…

Best regards,

Jeff

-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

I stepped on toes. I called your little pookie illegal. Okay. Sorry for prodding at you, heh. I have been under the impression that Indonesia operated off of an independent regs system in addition to the CITES signatory regs and that the former is what all turtle species are regulated for export underneath (minus all of those Appendix II batagurids). Whether that's true or not, importation of the species is controlled such that there is an individual currently doing prison time in Florida for bringing a shipment of Carettochelys in (he was liscensed to import reptiles; as the shipment was reputedly trans-shipping through Singapore I do not know if he violated any separate laws). That info came from a Floridian turtle broker, and I also recall reading about the incident a little while back in a periodical.

Virtually all of the Carettochelys in the country would still have to be smuggled in. Customs wouldn't miss by an inch, or inch and a half, and most of the ones we see are well under the four inch mark. Turtles can't come in for unspecified distribution (or pet dist.) if they're under four inches. Hopefully, for the sake of most of the well-intentioned Carettochelys keepers in the U.S., I'm mislead with regards to the few legal-size, pre '05 specimens. Still, play it safe and don't make this species the CAHS posterchild just yet. Best regards.

Not stepping on my toes, as the specimen within the photo is a resident within the university collection, with documentation regarding its import into the U.S., but I’m happy to give you a laugh.
Before going public with incorrect information, you may wish to do some research on the subject you undertake, instead of relying upon your own impressions, as such can be very misleading and imposes unnecessary fears upon individuals harboring such specimens.
Ahh, the urban legend surrounding the individual being incarcerated for importing C. insculpta. I find it odd that the two USF&W agents I work with on a regular basis are unfamiliar with anyone “doing time” in conjunction with the illegal import and / or distribution of C. insculpta, nor was a report posted regarding such, much like the report posted by the USF&W, that everyone and their brother saw, when Don hamper was convicted of illegal herpetofauna dealings, but my USF&W friends are looking into this for me and I should have accurate information by the end of next week, which I shall post, as I could be wrong, it would not be a first, and I will post such findings.
All in all, I believe we are in agreement, as I too feel this is a species of concern, more from its availability within the Asian food markets then U.S. pet trade and I will further agree with you, in that there are a great number of specimens entering the U.S. illegally, but then again, I believe C. insculpta make up less then 1% of the total illegal herpetofauna trade, since such is the second largest “black market” within the U.S., being second only to the smuggling of narcotics…

Best regards,

Jeff
-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

I do know that about three years ago 198 flyriver turtles wereshipped illegally through FedEx. I helped repack them in TN and send them on their way to a controlled delivery. I do not know the outcome of the case. There were also 25 star tortoises and three monitor lizards. This shipment was from Singapore. And I do believe that flyriver turtles grow a bit on the slow side .

After I wrote the last post, realizing my only-very-basic understanding of internal herp laws as they relate to Indonesian wildlife, I decided to further that understanding via the details. Not within the U.S., since everything (including even our exchange) seems ambiguous, but rather, into the species’ legality within Indonesia (we know what legality is in the other two range countries).

Turtle species not federally protected and/or listed under CITES are controlled by the Fishery Service, executed at the local level (with conservation little a priority). This is likely why such huge numbers of batagurids made it out of Indo in the nineties before most of them went Appendix II.

However, Carettochelys is one of six protected turtle species in Indonesia. Federally protected species (based on Gov. Regulation No. 7 of 1999, the same year many Carettochelys began appearing in the U.S.) are controlled by the authority of the Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops. Protected species are disallowed any utilization “except with special permission from the Minister and under the consent of the Scientific Authority for very special circumstances and captive breeding.” That last term conjures the curious paradox turned up by the cited reference.

In Government Regulation No. 8 of 1999, Chapter III Article 7, eggs and juveniles of species with naturally low hatchling survival rates (crocs and turtles being the example given) can be collected from the wild for captive breeding and may afterwards be exploited as a commodity… after the second generation. However, Chapter XI, Article 44 allows the possibility to use any “captive bred” species for trade (thus confusing whether wild-harvested, captive-hatched babies are included). This duality has allowed for the issuance of quotas for some (nationally) protected species. The publication from which this information is drawn mandates that “the captive management section (Chapter 3) needs to be corrected according to international definitions of captive breeding and ranching.” That may do little to resolve the paradox, as we know that turtle “farming” in Arkansas and Louisiana (with U.S. state legal workers determining the definitional wording) is anything but bona fide farming.

The difficulty seems to be that the government does not issue export quotas, but rather the quotas may be executed on local levels (on behalf of local pressure). This would seemingly imply that the species would not be up for legal export. Eggs collected from one documented river harvest (half a million eggs in 1998) were hatched out and the young turtles were shipped to Jakarta and a few other Indonesian cities, “from where they were illegally exported to Taiwan, China or Singapore. The turtles were declared as fish when export was undertaken.” This brings up another problem with wildlife shipping legalities in Indo. Act No. 10 of 1995 concerning Customs and Excise disallows customs officers from opening (thus inspecting) packages unless there is intelligence information that the packages contain illegal goods.

The paradox, even if found in favor of export quotas, shows that only youngsters would be legally exported, and this means that no legal import into the U.S. would be allowable (unless farmed animals were held for three to five years before export, such that they reached the four inch mark) on behalf of diminutive juvenile size (recall, nothing under four inches unless it has strict implications for special use). Further, the fact that gross numbers of juvenile Carettochelys have been documented in Chinese animal markets and pet fairs suggests that alternative smuggling routes may wind up in the U.S. The far lower price of the species in China, plus it’s greater availability, may illustrate that Indonesian contraband wildlife has an easier time getting into China than it does into the U.S. (where Carettochelys costs up to $500 dollars, instead of $5).

The publication from which much of the legal information was derived goes on to illustrate the sheer volume of exploitation going on in Irian Jaya/ Papua New Guinea (trafficked across the boarder to Indonesia’s half of the island) to obtain the “illegal” eggs. The numbers are mind boggling, and we’re resultantly going to watch an incredibly curious relict exhibit the exact same pattern of boom-crash that Batagur did almost a century earlier.

Finally, for those who want to self-righteously cry that the specimens that wind up in the U.S. could prove a foundation for the species’ captive conservation, I offer a wrinkle. The species expresses TSD. As has already been seen with ex-situ incubation of many species’ eggs (for headstarting programs), manmade incubation environs can produce skewed sex ratios. If eggs are dug up and incubated in covered, protected sites (i.e., out of immediate sun), males tend to be a heavy result. This does not bode well for expedient numerical expansion nor convenient genetic diversification of captive stocks. It appears as though this species’ position is a precarious one in every direction.

The reference for the legality info and egg collection data was the CRF’s Chelonian Research Monograph Number 2 (August 2000) – Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Van Dijk, Peter Paul, et. al. It had been several years since I read through that one, and I had forgotten what a useful work it is for understanding international use in these animals.