In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

146 The international and interstate trade in amphibians is enormous and legally complex. There are also ramifications to this trade. In addition to posing a threat to native populations from overcollecting, the herpetofauna trade (including the bait industry) imports native animals that may be diseased or of different genetic stock and exotic species that may be invasive. The Legal Amphibian Trade The U.S. Federal Animal Welfare Act of 1966 regulates the use of animals for research and exhibition, as well as for the pet trade. Many state regulators misunderstand this law, believing that it totally regulates the pet industry. In fact, this law defines animals as “warm blooded” (7 U.S. Code § 2131-2159 and 9 CFR, Chapter 1, Parts 1–4), and by definition leaves no provisions for the regulation of “cold blooded” animals, including amphibians. Individual states often take their lead from the federal government in proposing regulations. As a result, few laws have been passed to regulate the harvest and importation of amphibians (see Appendix 22-A). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES; e.g., 2000) of Wild Fauna and Flora became law in 1973. CITES prohibits the importing, exporting, or reexporting of wildlife or plants (or their parts or derivatives of certain species) unless permitted to do so by both the importing and exporting country. The CITES treaty has been signed by 145 member nations. This treaty is a step in the right direction, but it has not stopped the illegal trade in amphibians and reptiles. For example, the exportation of Australian amphibians and reptiles is strictly regulated by the Australian Wildlife Protection Act. The only wildlife that legally leave Australia must have permits and can go only to zoos or research institutions. Yet, an Australian wildlife law enforcement officer revealed that at this time some Australian species are more readily available in the United States than in Australia. How can this be true? It turns out that Australian amphibians and reptiles are being smuggled illegally out of the country via ships or aircraft, as well as simply being mailed out of the country. Some Australian amphibians and reptiles come from zoos and research institutions that had obtained them legally. As another example, protected South American species and products readily find their way into European land-holding countries where they are traded freely and legally. Eventually, some of these animals and products make their way to the lucrative United States market. Almost all countries (including the United States) permit an extremely large, legal trade in captive-bred amphibians and reptiles. Because there is no way (short of DNA fingerprinting) to tell if an amphibian or reptile is captive raised, commercial dealers have been known to supplement their legal captiveborn stock with legal and/or illegal wild-caught specimens. Some regulators are too cautious and would like to see population studies before they take action. It is true that no one is absolutely sure what will happen when amphibians and reptiles are harvested. This is simply because there has not been enough research. Usually one would expect to see a decrease if harvesting were allowed, especially in specific isolated populations . American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) are a good example . I have been checking frog hunters in the same area for twenty-six years and the populations have decreased substantially . The habitat is still there, with no apparent pollution, so over-harvesting must be suspected. Waiting for a population problem to exist or to be confirmed before protecting a species is reactively regulating, and it may result in action being taken too late to save a population. Another problem is a lack of communication between states. An embarrassing example is an individual who was made a member of the Indiana Department of Natural Resource’s NonGame Amphibian and Reptile Technical Advisory Committee. Two years previously he had been arrested in West Virginia for violation of amphibian and reptile laws. The commercial interest in amphibians and reptiles has grown rapidly (Jones, 1994), driven in part by the general interest in amphibian declines and the popularity of amphibians and reptiles in the entertainment and advertisement industries . Today, millions of amphibians and reptiles are being kept as pets in the United States alone. There are relatively few laws across the United States that deal with harvesting amphibians and reptiles for the pet industry or the release of non-native pet amphibians and reptiles to the wild (see Levell, 1995). Where such laws exist, the effectiveness of state wildlife...

Share