|
|
Post by simosg on Apr 24, 2012 10:52:43 GMT -8
[quote author=exoticimports board=legal thread=2479 post=17812 time=1335238726[/quote]
USA is not Nazi Germany, or even most countries."
[/quote]
What ist your problem? Are you crazy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by crino on Apr 26, 2012 5:24:52 GMT -8
Comments like this should be forbidden in this forum  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 26, 2012 6:56:46 GMT -8
Comments like this should be forbidden in this forum Maybe, but the information in this thread outwieghs it. Where else can you find such expert knowledge than in our Forum? Thanks gentlemen!  |
|
|
|
Post by coleopterra on Apr 26, 2012 12:52:36 GMT -8
"USA is not Nazi Germany, or even most countries. Almost nothing in USA is totally forbidden, it is "restricted." One thing that is definitely not restricted or forbidden in Nazi Germany is education. Unlike some people outside of germany, they have to learn about their own history twice or three times a week. In generally the "Nazi" education is not that bad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment However, it has to be considered that the statistic only deals with individuals visiting school. Habe die Ehre (Farewell). |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 26, 2012 12:56:11 GMT -8
"USA is not Nazi Germany, or even most countries. Almost nothing in USA is totally forbidden, it is "restricted." One thing that is definitely not restricted or forbidden in Nazi Germany is education. Unlike some people outside of germany, they have to learn about their own history twice or three times a week. In generally the "Nazi" education is not that bad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment However, it has to be considered that the statistic only deals with individuals visiting school. Habe die Ehre (Farewell). Veering off-topic here. The important legal points on hermeli are skillfully elaborated on by our knowledgeable contributors who have experience on this topic. We all should be thankful that they are taking the time to explain all this! No more talk of Nazis please. |
|
|
|
Post by indowings on Apr 29, 2012 21:28:39 GMT -8
I wrote to CITES to clarify their position on hermeli and chickae, and this is the response I got:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Unlike many other taxa, the Conference of the Parties to CITES has not adopted a standard nomenclatural reference for the family Papilionidae (other than for Ornithoptera spp., Trogonoptera spp. and Troides spp.) and so there is no guide to what specimens are covered by a particular species name for the butterflies in this family listed in the CITES Appendices.
The Conference decided to include the species Papilio chikae in Appendix I in 1987, that is to say before Papilio hermeli was described in the scientific literature.
The supporting statement for the proposal which was agreed upon in 1987 states that the species that was the subject of the proposal was endemic to Luzon.
In summary, the Secretariat is not aware of any information which would suggest that it was the intention of Parties to include butterflies now known as Papilio hermeli in the CITES Appendix I listing for Papilio chikae.
We trust that this is of assistance.
Sincerely
DM
David H.W. Morgan
Chief, Scientific Services Team/Jefe del Equipo de Servicios Cientificos/Chef d'Equipe des Services scientifiques,
CITES Secretariat/Secretaria CITES/Secretariat CITES,
Maison internationale de l'environnement,
Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
--------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note the mention of endemicity to Luzon in the supporting statement for chikae being put on CITES I.
Of course, there is still some ambiguity here, but I though people would be interested in this response from the very source of the convention.
David.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by indowings on May 3, 2012 16:25:37 GMT -8
I decided to get things really clear with CITES in Geneva, so sent another email and got a fairly swift reply (copy below).
For me, this response clearly states that Papilio chikae hermeli, or whatever you want to call it, is not subject to CITES I. This may change, as indicated in the response, but not necessarily. Here is the response from CITES:
Dear Sir
Thank you for your further enquiry.
As stated in our previous email, although the listing took place quite some time ago, the Secretariat is not aware of any information which would suggest that it was the intention of Parties to include butterflies now known as Papilio (chikae) hermeli in the CITES Appendix I listing for Papilio chikae. In such circumstances, extension of the Appendix I listing to cover specimens existing on Mindoro island (whatever they may be called), could only be achieved by a further decision of the Conference of the Parties.
Separately, the Conference of the Parties may decide to adopt a standard nomenclatural reference covering these taxa which has the effect of formally recognizing Papilio hermeli as a subspecies of Papilio chikae. Such a proposal would normally be made by the CITES Animals Committee
(http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/index.php) on the basis of a suggestion from its Nomenclature Specialist (currently Dr Ute Grimm). Such an adoption would not mean that Papilio chikae hermeli was therefore automatically included in Appendix I - that would need to be the subject of a separate decision (see above)
We trust that this is helpful.
Sincerely
DM
David H.W. Morgan
Chief, Scientific Services Team/Jefe del Equipo de Servicios Cientificos/Chef d'Equipe des Services scientifiques,
CITES Secretariat/Secretaria CITES/Secretariat CITES,
Maison internationale de l'environnement,
Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on May 4, 2012 8:27:36 GMT -8
Clark, sorry to return to the "Nazi" topic...I did not mean to infer that Germany is now Nazi, I was referring to the historical entity.
I used Nazi Germany (again, in case it's not clear, that would be the post-Weimar Germany) as an example where things were "streng verboten." And, in some countries today, the legal system works on a "forbidden" process.
Maybe I'll start a thread on Ostfrieslander jokes...
Can we now return to the topic at hand?
|
|
|
|
Post by suzuki on May 4, 2012 13:56:40 GMT -8
In the light of these 2 responses from CITES it seems clear that P. Hermeli is not protected by Appendix 1 if only on the basis that this butterfly was only scientifically established after 1987. It follows for the USA to prosescute possession or dealing with this under new laws it would have to enact.
You would have thought that with all the financial difficulties currently in USA plus a Presidential election in November that its Government would have more important things to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on May 5, 2012 8:02:22 GMT -8
CITES enforcement was not the point that the OP made. There is no prohibition of possession of CITES I species in the US.
What the CITES Secretariat thinks might have some (but not a lot of) bearing on how USFWS enforces the ESA, so the letters from the Scientific Services Team (if you had copies of the originals) might be good to show USFWS if they came knocking on your door, ...however likely or unlikely that might be.
It was enforcement under the ESA regarding P. hermeli that the OP was concerned with.
|
|
|
|
Post by indowings on May 5, 2012 15:20:32 GMT -8
Well if it is a matter of enforcing the ESA, then yes, what CITES says is of little consequence. Makes me glad I'm in Australia : )
|
|
