complete animal species ownership by one country
- Thread starter gerome
- Start date
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Australia is known for being quite protective of it's native species.
So are Ecuador (Galápagos islands included), Ethiopia and Madagascar. That is why only a few of their endemics are common in captivity. However, I wouldn't classify the ownership of their animals in the same way I do with giant pandas. Is importing these creatures possible? Yes, but not feasible, as you would have to go through a LOT of paperwork (and even possibly a few thousands of dollar in fees), but the animal will still be yours in most cases.
You cannot legally import any cetaceans from Brazil either, as their presence in captivity has been de facto banned in the country.
I believe no species belongs to the Brazilian government in a similar manner as to how giant pandas are all property of the People's Republic of China. I, however, can give you a small list of "country-locked" animals.
- Alcatrazes tree frog (Scinax alcatraz): only found in São Paulo (zoo).
- Alcatrazes lancehead (Bothrops alcatraz): only found at Instituto Butantan.
- Golden lancehead (Bothrops insularis): only found in a handful of collections in São Paulo.
- Vitória island lancehead (Bothrops otavioi): only found at Instituto Butantan.
- Franceses island lancehead (Bothrops sazimai): only found at Instituto Butantan.
- Eastern silky anteater (Cyclopes didactyla): only found in Itatiba.
- Buffy-tufted marmoset (Callithrix aurita): only found in a handful Brazilian collections.
- Southern muriqui (Brachyteles arachnoides): only found in a handful of Brazilian collections.
- Kaapori capuchin (Cebus kaapori): only found in a handful of Brazilian collections.
- Alagoas curassow (Mitu mitu): only found in a handful Brazilian collections.
- Seven-colored tanager (Tangara fastuosa): only found in Maragogi (EcoPark Sol & Mar), if not bred privately in Europe.
Last edited:
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Interestingly enough, there's currently a Silky Anteater for sale in the US!
Most exotic animals seen on the pet trade
India is often similar, but some state governments block export even to other states. So lions from Gujarat were never exported to Kuno national park in Madhya Pradesh, and rhinos from Assam could not be exported to Corbett national park in Uttarakhand. Both reintroductions have been discussed on and off for 50 or more years already.
Most governments / countries seem rather proud of their local animals, even when they don't effectively protect them. This seem to result in two opposite approaches. One is gifting, when a government gives away their animals, because it is seen as a public relations move and helping increase the population of the species. Second is hoarding, when a government prohibits exporting wildlife, because this is giving away valuable property, and (almost always imaginary) losing power, influence or tourist income. The first approach is successful in protection, the second is not.
The point is that rare animals are sometimes seen as a source of money / power / influence by governments, provinces or local national park directors. There is no meaningful money or power to be lost from giving away some animals. But the authorities want to keep any power, even with the position: if we cannot have these animals, nobody else will.
These approaches have over 100 years of history. An early example of gifting is governments of Poland and Russia giving away wisents to other countries. The wisent would be extinct without it, as wild wisents were poached out during the wars in the early 20. century and all wisents living today are descendants of 12 of the gifted wisents.
An early example of hoarding is China which kept Pere David deer in an imperial park. An English missionaire and naturalist Pere David saw the deer, obtained first specimens and then live animals by committing bribery and a crime punishable by death penalty. All Pere David deer in China were poached out during the war in the early 20. century and all existing today are descendants of 3 of the half-legal or illegal Pere David Deer, many of which were gifted back to China.
Most governments / countries seem rather proud of their local animals, even when they don't effectively protect them. This seem to result in two opposite approaches. One is gifting, when a government gives away their animals, because it is seen as a public relations move and helping increase the population of the species. Second is hoarding, when a government prohibits exporting wildlife, because this is giving away valuable property, and (almost always imaginary) losing power, influence or tourist income. The first approach is successful in protection, the second is not.
The point is that rare animals are sometimes seen as a source of money / power / influence by governments, provinces or local national park directors. There is no meaningful money or power to be lost from giving away some animals. But the authorities want to keep any power, even with the position: if we cannot have these animals, nobody else will.
These approaches have over 100 years of history. An early example of gifting is governments of Poland and Russia giving away wisents to other countries. The wisent would be extinct without it, as wild wisents were poached out during the wars in the early 20. century and all wisents living today are descendants of 12 of the gifted wisents.
An early example of hoarding is China which kept Pere David deer in an imperial park. An English missionaire and naturalist Pere David saw the deer, obtained first specimens and then live animals by committing bribery and a crime punishable by death penalty. All Pere David deer in China were poached out during the war in the early 20. century and all existing today are descendants of 3 of the half-legal or illegal Pere David Deer, many of which were gifted back to China.
Pere David wasn't Engish; he was a French Catholic priest and missionary.
Local_Shark
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t say this is like national ownership per se, but I do believe a law was passed a few years back preventing river dolphins from being removed from the Amazon within the borders of Brazil.
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
In India the problem isn't exchanging of captive animals, it is between exchanging wild ones. To the best of my knowledge the reason the state govt. of Gujarat hasn't sent Asiatic lions to Madhya Pradesh is because Gujarat would lose its status as the sole wild habitat of the Asiatic lion. It was presumed that since lions could now be seen in other parts of the country as well, the footfall to the region would decrease, leading to fall in revenue and of course, Gujarat's status as the sole home of these lions.
I was told that the Jamaican government owns Jamaican iguanas.
flatstingray
Member
Im not 100% sure on this, but a previous hunting law in Guatemala considered all animals to be property of the Nation. On a current version of the law, it apparently dosent. But functionally, will Guatemala be willing to export Resplandecent Quetzals (Pharomachrus mocinno), their national animal under severe conservation risk... probably not. The Resplandecent Quetzal´s that have gone to the US have all come from Mexican collections. Now, what is the history behind live quetzals from an import/export entry registered in the CITES trade database to/from Ukraine/Syria in 2020/2021 ..... idk.