Malaysia going to battle Earless monitor trade :
Malaysia goes to battle for Godzilla-like lizard | TODAYonline
Malaysia goes to battle for Godzilla-like lizard | TODAYonline
Earless monitor trade
- Thread starter vogelcommando
- Start date
This recent paper is rather damming of the acquisition of Bornean earless monitors by a number of zoos in Asia and Europe - they have the highest level of legal protection in their native range and there have been no legal exports permitted for the species. As the title makes clear, it suggests that some zoos are consenting to the illegal trade in the earless monitor.
The full paper can be found here:
Zoos consenting to the illegal wildlife trade – the earless monitor lizard as a case study
The full paper can be found here:
Zoos consenting to the illegal wildlife trade – the earless monitor lizard as a case study
It is a well known quantity that illegal trade in wildlife is openly practised in range countries. Further, and in particular the illegal trade in reptiles and amphibians is rife and law enforcement is often poorly or ill-prepared to deal with its excess in S.E. Asia. Known centres of (il-)legal trade are amongst others Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. If you go on-line and check for tortoises and turtles prepare to be "shocked".
I feel the article itself does not come as very moral, while the zoos do.
The number of individuals acquired by zoos is tiny (less than 50?) so does not influence either wild population or trade. For conservation, this is a non-issue.
Earless monitor is considered likely to be widespread but cryptic and overlooked lizard, and not very popular even within a sub-sub-niche of rare reptile keepers. Therefore there is no evidence that the international trade caused objective harm to the population in the first place. It is however clear, that private trade now regularly breeds the lizard in the numbers sufficient to have tens of animals for exchange.
Trade and breeding by hobbyists appeared earlier and independently of zoos. There is no evidence that smugglers or hobbyists were encouraged or emboldened in any meaningful way because of zoos actions. Zoos simply have no say on hobbyist trade.
At least some earless monitors were confiscated at customs, so legally deposited in zoos. The only alternative would be euthanasia.The article failed to mention it, while the humble forum above mentioned it.
The article makes a strange case that local law should apply to exported wildlife for perpetuity. This does not exist in international law. It would, if hypothetically implemented in future, greatly complicate both conservation and economy. There are numerous examples where local governments were neglectful or obstructive. Or imagine a government having a say on all furniture made from tropical wood exported from that country.
The article, however, puts a blind eye on a number of moral issues. For example, that much of illegal wildlife trade is domestic and there is an inaction of domestic authorities. However, the biggest morally indefensible proposal, which was already pointed to the author, is skewing relative importance of different threats to the earless monitor: tiny international trade vs. large local habitat destruction.
The number of individuals acquired by zoos is tiny (less than 50?) so does not influence either wild population or trade. For conservation, this is a non-issue.
Earless monitor is considered likely to be widespread but cryptic and overlooked lizard, and not very popular even within a sub-sub-niche of rare reptile keepers. Therefore there is no evidence that the international trade caused objective harm to the population in the first place. It is however clear, that private trade now regularly breeds the lizard in the numbers sufficient to have tens of animals for exchange.
Trade and breeding by hobbyists appeared earlier and independently of zoos. There is no evidence that smugglers or hobbyists were encouraged or emboldened in any meaningful way because of zoos actions. Zoos simply have no say on hobbyist trade.
At least some earless monitors were confiscated at customs, so legally deposited in zoos. The only alternative would be euthanasia.The article failed to mention it, while the humble forum above mentioned it.
The article makes a strange case that local law should apply to exported wildlife for perpetuity. This does not exist in international law. It would, if hypothetically implemented in future, greatly complicate both conservation and economy. There are numerous examples where local governments were neglectful or obstructive. Or imagine a government having a say on all furniture made from tropical wood exported from that country.
The article, however, puts a blind eye on a number of moral issues. For example, that much of illegal wildlife trade is domestic and there is an inaction of domestic authorities. However, the biggest morally indefensible proposal, which was already pointed to the author, is skewing relative importance of different threats to the earless monitor: tiny international trade vs. large local habitat destruction.
Last edited:
I'm not surprised that they failed to mention this detail.
The average reader doesn't know nor care about the details. They just want what is told to them which is "exotic pet ownership bad, wildlife trade bad, utilitarianism bad. ban them, ban them all." Since the average reader doesn't know nor care they could believe anything journalists tell them at face value as far as putting sugar gliders and tigers in the same group when discussing about why exotic pets are bad.
And yet wee are keep adding new animals to CITES as if it actually does stop trafficking 100%.
Now I acknowledge that this idea is superstition but hear me out. I can't help but believe that the prohibitions on the wildlife trade is:
1) A scapegoat to habitat destruction done by corporations and corrupt governments.
2) A power move that many conservation groups and animal rights organizations use to prevent groups of people who they don't deem worthy from using wildlife resources regardless of how the animal is sourced.
I sadly am not the person to discuss these topics in an articulate manner I am sure that there is someone out there in this world who is able to see what I perceive and explain it better. But my point is that the passion to regulate the wildlife trade to the point of prohibition with passion feels suspicious to me. But I will keep my crazy mouth shut now.
Was national geographic always this anti wildlife trade and anti exotic pet.
There is also a paper online:
(PDF) The earless monitor lizard (Lanthanotus borneensis) in European zoos – past, present, perspectives
Among others, it describes the history of earless monitors in zoos, including several during the time when the previous paper claimed the species was 'lost'.
By the way, it is not a very interesting animal in real life. Good, however, that it breeds well in human care.
(PDF) The earless monitor lizard (Lanthanotus borneensis) in European zoos – past, present, perspectives
Among others, it describes the history of earless monitors in zoos, including several during the time when the previous paper claimed the species was 'lost'.
By the way, it is not a very interesting animal in real life. Good, however, that it breeds well in human care.
I heard claims that this animal was hyped to create some demand so there could be a trade to demonstrate why the trade is evil.
Prohibition and regulation is often the right approach though, or at least would be the best approach if it were better enforced. There are many species (not sure about this one specifically) where trafficking actually *is* of huge detriment to local populations and the species at-large; in these cases, regulating the trade seems more like a legitimate and common-sense decision than just a scapegoat or power move.
Do you have any sources or evidence for these claims?
Unenlagia90
Well-Known Member
The paper of Zoos consenting illegal wildlife trade is not definitely right or wrong. The authors published this paper is to attract attention to zoos, because zoos are supposed to be a conservation site, if it was consenting illegal wildlife trade it will totally be a paradox. But the zoos that have the earless monitors says that what they did is right, if the species is extinct in the wild they can have the specimens kept used for breeding and rehabilitation.