How many Caudates are CITES listed?

Don't you hate it when somebody answers their own questions? I did a search of how many Caudates are CITES listed. All currently listed ones were listed in 1975. 2 species were listed and deleted. Their is a grand total of 5 Caudate species that are CITES listed. I find this hard to believe but that's all I came up with. Please double check my results. I'm not sure why Andrias sp. is listed separate from davidianus and japonicus. Ambystoma lermaense and Pleurodeles poireti were previously listed but deleted.
CITESII:
Ambystoma dumerilii
Ambystoma mexicanum

CitesI:
Andrias davidianus
Andrias japonicus
Andrias Sp.

I love it when people answer their own questions Interesting info.

The next fauna meeting is in March of this year in Qatar. The following species are in various stages of inclusion. N. kaiseri, and Chioglossa lusitanica being closest to completetion at this meeting.


Cynops phyrrogaster, Chioglossa lusitanica, Euproctus aspe,. Euproctus montanus, Euproctus platycephalus, Mertensiella luschani,Triturus cristatus, Neurergus kaiseri,Salamandra salamandra,

Chioglossa lusitancia? No, that is not listed for CITES. See Welcome to CITES and see the porposals presented in Quatar.

First of all; there is no trade in this species possible as it is already protected in the most highest way by European Directives (Habitat Directive).

Secondly; there never has been trade in this species. So CITES is the wrong tool for protection. CITES is only applied when it comes to TRADE.

By the way; in your species list I see Chiooglossa and Mertensiella; do you have these species in the USA? Do you ahve the proper papers with them? I mean export papers of of their countries of origin, permits to catch them etc.?
There is no reported captive breeding of this species and both species are stictly protected by the Habitats Directive, except if they have been captive bred, and then I wonder who is the breeder...(I would like to know!).

So if species are threathened by other means, CITES can't do anything.

Sergé, Sludgemunky's list are species apparently being considered for CITES, not his personal collection.

Chioglossa lusitancia was recently bred in the UK. The offspring were sold by Dartfrog as cb. Maybe last year or the year before. I think it was an outdoor enclosure and the owner was quite surprised to find juveniles one day.

Aye, Mark is correct. Those species are up for consideration. Some of them have been for years (since 1975!) and for whatever reason have not made it into the appendix listings yet. looking at the schedule for this springs meeting, it appears that only N. kaiseri is on the table at this one.

SludgeMunkey said:

Aye,
this springs meeting, it appears that only N. kaiseri is on the table at this one.

Click to expand...

If N. kaiseri is listed CITES II it will slow down trade in these animals. They will still be able to be imprted and exported to the U.S. with CITES paperwork. Trade within the U.S. will most likely be unrestricted.

If N. Kaiseri is listed CITES I it will probably ground their trade to a near halt. It appears that their are now more N. kaiseri in captivity than what the estimated population is in the wild. It's going to be real interesting to see what happens.

I followed the old thread where some advised people in the U.S. to breed N. kaiseri in mass to drive down the price. Some also advocated trying to get more restrictions on imports of kaiseri. Caudata.org members have had some input with CITES. Now some of our members might be stuck with animals they bred in mass and are no longer able to have. The price will be driven down to nothing since it might be illegal to sell them if they are listed as CITESI. If they are only listed as CITES II the price in the U.S. should go up a little.

Agreed. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

michael said:

Don't you hate it when somebody answers their own questions? I did a search of how many Caudates are CITES listed. All currently listed ones were listed in 1975. 2 species were listed and deleted. Their is a grand total of 5 Caudate species that are CITES listed. I find this hard to believe but that's all I came up with. Please double check my results. I'm not sure why Andrias sp. is listed separate from davidianus and japonicus. Ambystoma lermaense and Pleurodeles poireti were previously listed but deleted.
CITESII:
Ambystoma dumerilii
Ambystoma mexicanum

CitesI:
Andrias davidianus
Andrias japonicus
Andrias Sp.

Click to expand...

Michael, when I prepared the 'top box' information for the species entries in Caudata Culture, these are the only 4 currently listed species of caudates that I found as well.

If something is listed as CITES I would it be totally illegal to possess privately?(particularly if it fell under the Lacy Act if it was illegally imported?)

If all CITES I listing did was make it illegal to sell(but ok to distribute amongst hobbyists still) then that would be ok though interstate swapping to maintain bloodlines would be very difficult. I believe their is a Sarracenia species listed as CITES I that can only be gifted to other people.

fishkeeper said:

If something is listed as CITES I would it be totally illegal to possess privately?(particularly if it fell under the Lacy Act if it was illegally imported?)

Click to expand...

CITESI is supposed to mean most endangered. Many CITES I plant and animal species can't be owned by private citizens in the U.S. Some have exemptions for a number of reasons. Some plants and animals are Listed as CITESI but treated as CITESII within the U.S. if captive bred or propogated. It's tough to guess what will happen with any new CITESI listings for salamanders. Presently all CITES I salamanders can't be privately owned in the U.S. and are difficult for zoos and museums to obtain.

I did see a CITES I salamander in a guys basement in Canada. He claims that he has all of the permits to make it legal for him to have.

Just to add, Neurergus kaiseri (Luristan Newt, Emperor Newt or Emperor-Spotted Newt) was added to CITES Appendix I on March 21st 2010.

This thread seems to be about more than merely numbers. In a thread in the axolotl free for all CITES was raised as a possible legal help in stopping the eating of axolotls and also criticised as totally useless in providing any protection to endangered animals.

I've taken the easy ethical decision I am not going to eat any of my axolotls. I don't think CITES has a useful role in that debate, but think the CITES treaty has been generally helpful and far from useless. By monitoring and applying some measure of control to international trade it limits threatening exploitation of vulnerable species.

I accept that exploitative wild capture or slaughter is not the only reason animals/plants become endangered and extinct but it can be a powerful compounding factor as rarity attracts collectors.

Do members of the forum generally feel CITES is weak/useless? What reforms are needed if any?

I for one feel that CITES is an excellent meassure, the problem is how it is applied and WHEN. If too late or applied to the wrong category for the circumstances, it can pose a problem.