Chilian rose expoting stopped?

[Bob]

A freind of mine is an animal importer and said the guy he gets his Grammostola Roseas from said Chile is thinking of stopping their exporting of them. If so I want to get a few now. This is probably a rumor maybe to drum up sales, who knows but has anyone else here of this?

Bob

 

[ahkiu]

haven't heard anything but it wouldn't surprise me. Chilli roses are so cheap, not many people breed them so most are wild caught and been a starter T for a lot of people demand from wild stock is quite high i would assume.

Kinda the same thing happened with b.smithi in the wild where they are not protected by law

 

[Professor T]

I haven't herd this, but eventually it will happen. Its sad, I see vendors at reptile shows with 100's of deli cups with G. rosea priced at $5 each, with very few sales. They could very well currently be over harvesting them...which is a shame, because in my opinion they are one of the best pet T species in the hobby.

 

[Lopez]

Good to hear. It's about time we stopped harvesting G rosea and started to breed them in earnest. Chile's wild population can't sustain all these exports for much longer.

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Lopez
Good to hear. It's about time we stopped harvesting G rosea and started to breed them in earnest. Chile's wild population can't sustain all these exports for much longer.

You base this conclusion on what exactly? Do you have the papers that show consistently declining wild populations for several years compared against environmental data to show that the most likely explantation is over collection?

No? Then please keep the rampant speculation stated as fact to yourself.

Similar logic was applied to the B. smithi (and consequently the other Mexican Brachypelma) and their export was banned. Well, not only was there never any evidence that exporting was harming their numbers, what evidence there was suggested their biggest threat were native Mexicans killing them out of ignorance and industrialization of their habitat. So, we've now spent twenty years of no legal exports for no measured benefit while the real threats to their numbers continue unchecked.

That was such a great idea, sure, let's apply it to Chile so we can pat ourselves on the back and feel better even if absolutely nothing was accomplished.

Also, anyone who thinks that banning exports will cause a revolution in G. rosea breeding like happened with B. smithi probalby has too many fuzzy feelings from that first T they picked up at the pet store for $10. Make the difficult to breed and very slow to grow G. rosea compete with even other Grammastola species in the captive bred marketplace and they'll largely disappear from collections in a decade or two is my gut feeling.

 

[Aviculariinae]

Common logic would suggest that we are harming there numbers,there are so many rosea's around now it would suggest that they were being exported from chile,which means that we must be adding to the decline in someway,I could not see all the chiles around now as being captive bred specimens!Which is why i think they would be exported in huge numbers

I would agree that industrialization may be destroying there habitat,which is a shame,

You base this conclusion on what exactly? Do you have the papers that show consistently declining wild populations for several years compared against environmental data to show that the most likely explantation is over collection?

No? Then please keep the rampant speculation stated as fact to yourself

All we can do is speculate really about this and nothing is fact
including what you said

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Sham,Tarantulas
Common logic would suggest that we are harming there numbers [/B]

Common logic means exactly bupkiss when it comes to actual logic and knowledge.

It is just as likely that by constantly culling the population of larger juvenile and adult specimens you are allowing a higher percentage of hatchlings to survive into juvenile and adult sizes.

In other words, your "common logic" stands a very good chance of being 100% wrong.

It's like how animal rights ninnies can't get it through their heads that deer populations are healthier, larger on an individual basis, and less plagued by disease when hunted heavily rather than allowed to "run free".

Until an actual study is done to see whether or not exports harm the numbers, it's worse than speculation to suggest we're harming the population, it's pure propoganda crap.

 

[Wade]

From a purely selfish standpoint, it would be good news for me. The 150 captive bred G. rosea spiderlings I have, which are practically worthless right now(from a market standpoint), could jump up in value. Yippee for me.

Otherwise, I largely agree with Code Monkey. Annother factor that has to be looked at is how the animals are collected. Often, commercial collectors (of a wide variety of wildlife) simply follow logging trucks and collect the newly displaced animals as their habitat is destroyed. Collection of such animals does not effect the population, because they're doomed anyway. Sad, but blaming the pet trade is like blaming a salvage yard for a car wreck. I have no idea if the above senario reflects the situation for G. rosea specifically, but it is a common practice.

Also, the sheer numbers and low price would suggest that the numbers must still be pretty strong. Determining weather or not they'll stay that way will take research and study. Shutting down the trade without examining the specifics does nothing but take away potential income (admittedly a tiny percentage) from a country that needs it. In all likleyhood, there is a level at wich they could be havested in a sustainable way.

Wade

 

[SkyeSpider]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Also, anyone who thinks that banning exports will cause a revolution in G. rosea breeding like happened with B. smithi probalby has too many fuzzy feelings from that first T they picked up at the pet store for $10. Make the difficult to breed and very slow to grow G. rosea compete with even other Grammastola species in the captive bred marketplace and they'll largely disappear from collections in a decade or two is my gut feeling.

I have to agree with you 100%, Chip.

-Bryan

 

[wsimms]

I also agree with Code Monkey in principle. An analogy can be seen in subsaharan African countries with big game hunting. In general, those countries that have continued big game hunting still have big game populations, while those that have stopped it, like Kenya, have seen marked decline in their populations. It's simple market economics...if an animal has a legitimate market value, it becomes a commodity to be protected and harvested for income. Overharvesting=loss of commodity=loss of income. Even tribal Africans who have never heard of Wall Street understand this concept.
W

 

[Steve Nunn]

I think Chile should ban exporting. Did anyone here the yearly figure thrown out there by troll (Mike Dame) as to wild collection of G.rosea?? 50000....50000.....50000!!!!!

I'm sorry guys but no wild theraphosid populations can sustain those figures. Particularly when you factor in time required for G.rosea to reach maturity. Let's say that there are 10 exporters of G.rosea in Chile, what's that, 5000 each a year. Do these spiders come from local areas to the exporters??? I'd put money on it they've already cleaned out whole populations of G.rosea, something that should NEVER be done just to satisfy our wants.

I know deforestation and locals kill their fair share, since wehn does that give us as HOBBYISTS the right to take 50000 theraphosids out of the wild each year (this is one species!).

I know, this is all guesswork, but c'mon, you guys all know how long it takes G.rosea to mature, on top of that we are trusting exporters who do it for the money, not to take entire populations. What do you think the chances of these exporters being environmentally aware are??? I'd think about zero.

This is just an opinion, not much of it could be supported with evidence, just common sense yeah?

Oh, this isn't in argument to other opinions, just my point of view.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[MizM]

All I know is that the last two WC roseas I bought died a slow horrible death of some unknown disease. Then I start hearing rumors that the Chileans flush the burrows with gasoline to get them out, and then wash them off before exporting.

I say stop... unless they can prove all individuals are being caught and transported in a humane and safe manner for the T. And that goes for ALL species in ALL countries!

I live 60 miles from the Mexican border. You should hear the news stories here about beautiful exotic animals being put in plastic bags inside of gas tanks (and ALL MEANS of other, horrible nightmare hiding places) to get them over the border. Most don't make it that far, they don't get caught, but the creature is dead by the time they wait the 2 hours in line at the border!

______________________________________________________________________
THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION AND I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE OTHERS CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS!
______________________________________________________________________=D

 

[Mendi]

I personally hope that they stop too. Taking those numbers out of the wild along with the habitat destruction will lead quickly to the destruction of the species. I kinda wish that all mine Ts were CB no matter how long it takes them to reach maturaty. Losing all the wild places and animals on this planet will not only add to another mass extinction on this planet, we will be amongst them.

And I bet that G.rosea is walking the razors edge for CITES very soon, along with species like A.seemanni, C.crawshayi, P.regalis, and even T.blondi... At the rate of habitat destruction and the human population growth, soon there will be no room for them to live in the wild

 

[Lopez]

Originally posted by Steve Nunn
I think Chile should ban exporting. Did anyone here the yearly figure thrown out there by troll (Mike Dame) as to wild collection of G.rosea?? 50000....50000.....50000!!!!!

I'm sorry guys but no wild theraphosid populations can sustain those figures. Particularly when you factor in time required for G.rosea to reach maturity. Let's say that there are 10 exporters of G.rosea in Chile, what's that, 5000 each a year. Do these spiders come from local areas to the exporters??? I'd put money on it they've already cleaned out whole populations of G.rosea, something that should NEVER be done just to satisfy our wants.

I know deforestation and locals kill their fair share, since wehn does that give us as HOBBYISTS the right to take 50000 theraphosids out of the wild each year (this is one species!).

I know, this is all guesswork, but c'mon, you guys all know how long it takes G.rosea to mature, on top of that we are trusting exporters who do it for the money, not to take entire populations. What do you think the chances of these exporters being environmentally aware are??? I'd think about zero.

This is just an opinion, not much of it could be supported with evidence, just common sense yeah?

Oh, this isn't in argument to other opinions, just my point of view.

Thanks,
Steve

Thanks Steve, you basically typed my response for me and saved me getting sore fingers

 

[Vys]

Originally posted by Code Monkey

Until an actual study is done to see whether or not exports harm the numbers, it's worse than speculation to suggest we're harming the population, it's pure propoganda crap.

Yes but studies have a tendency to take time to get going, and getting finished. They cost money and they would be, in this case, prety hard to undertake?
At any rate, I think it's equally crappish to continue the harvest just because we have no studies telling us to stop.

 

[Malhavoc's]

Rosies take a long time to mature and since I've mostly only seen mature adults for sale that means that the s'lings that are more likely to die before reaching maturity I think were doing a good number on their populations I think exporting should be stopped if not slowed down. We're all worried about bad publicity for ourh obby well how do you think us beign responisble for the extinction of a species will look?

 

[Code Monkey]

There is a world of difference between wanting to push for an industry motivated regulation and asking for studies than to push for a governmental ban.

A ban removes the only real reason to preserve populations: their economic value. Under a ban, they become just another bug with no more value than a cockroach. Or do you pro-banners live in the delusional world where poor nigh 3rd-worlders want to choose to live in harmony with the environment instead of wreaking more destruction and polution than an equivalent number of decadent Americans can manage.

The point I'm trying to make is that even if populations are declining, unless it is ONLY the pet trade that is decimating those populations, the absolute worst thing that could happen to G. rosea from a species p.o.v. is to have their export banned. If their primary threat is from industrialization or other habitat destruction, an export ban is just a death senstence.
But, hey, throw actual logic out the window and jump on the knee-jerk "common sense" train, it's what all the cool kids are doing, and say things that make no sense like

Rosies take a long time to mature and since I've mostly only seen mature adults for sale that means that the s'lings that are more likely to die before reaching maturity

Huh?, or

At any rate, I think it's equally crappish to continue the harvest just because we have no studies telling us to stop.

... because it's so much better to ask for the government to solve problems for us even when we have as much reason to believe such a ban will fix the problem as me flipping a quarter right now will land on its edge.

=================

A G. rosea is a mostly plain brown tarantula that in the absence of their sheer numbers on the market place and dirt cheap prices would disappear from that marketplace. A ban is not something that should be undertaken lightly no matter what your common sense says.

Sure, maybe the pet trade is harming their numbers, but it's been doing so for decades and they're still just as available, just as cheap which is ample evidence they haven't come close to becoming threatened at this point.
But, a ban of this species, that found its place in the pet trade in the vacuum that occurred after CITES eliminated far more attractive species, is going to result in its de facto elimination of the species from the pet trade (or do you think that people are going to line up for CB G. rosea when they could have a G. pulchra for the same trouble and price?).

Worse, without those poo-poohed studies I call for, a ban might very well guarantee they'll be pushed farther towards extinction because their economic value is destroyed.

 

[wsimms]

Originally posted by Steve Nunn
I'd put money on it they've already cleaned out whole populations of G.rosea, something that should NEVER be done just to satisfy our wants.

I know deforestation and locals kill their fair share, since wehn does that give us as HOBBYISTS the right to take 50000 theraphosids out of the wild each year (this is one species!).

Well, you pretty much hit the nail on the head there. If WE didn't provide the DEMAND, there would be no MARKET for the SUPPLY and no incentive to take them from the wild (or, for that matter, no incentive to protect them either). Somewhere in the rational middle ground between no regulation and an outright ban is the concept that these animals are a renewable resource that can be harvested to an extent that the population will not be in danger from the harvesting itself.
W

 

[wsimms]

Oops! Disregard this transmission.

 

[Wade]

Doing a real population study will take a long time, but observing collection techniques and interviewing locals about where spiders used to be wouldn't. It seems to be reasonable to imagine we could get a decent impression of where the trend is leading.

I admit the numbers imported are staggering, but then again it appears to be a very wide ranging species. It boggles my mind how cheap they are, cheaper than even B. smithi ever was in the 70's. I don't understand how it can be done, even figuring in a third world economy, how can it be that they only cost $5 or less, after passing through countless middlemen? They must be very easy to collect. Annother T that is common and cheap is A. avicularia. This species has proven very adaptable to human presence, building their shelters on homes, fences, power poles etc. Rumor has it it has even become introduced to parts of Florida. Perhaps G. rosea has proven equally adaptable to humans. I am not saying this is the case, but simply suggesting that there may be more to the issue than just the sheer numbers alone. Before anyone points it out, I am well aware that A. avicularia grows much faster than G. rosea, but other factors could increase their reproductive capabilities, such as G. rosea's larger eggsacs (nearly three times the number of slings in a typical Avic). Most of what we think we know about this species is based on our captive observations. It is entirely possible that the slow growth we've observed could be, al least in part, an atrifact of captivity. We can't know these things until we look at them, in the wild.

And it is, of course, possible that the trade of these spiders is rapidly leading to their extinction. I can't deny that the old "their habitat is being destroyed so we might as well collect them all" argument is thrown around all to often to justify exploitaion, overharvesting and smuggling.

If Chile (or some international body) simply shuts down the trade, prices will go up. Despite Chip's comments about a "plain brown spider", many are quite attractive and the demand will still exist. As the price goes up, so will the incentives of smugglers and suddenly there's a black market. If, on the otherhand, Chile relaizes that these (and other wildlife, obviously G. rose alone isn't that big a deal by itself) are a natural resource that needs to be managed and encouraged to thrive , in order to be harvested and expoted in a rational manner, then we all win.

For clues on how to make that happen, we can look at the butterfly farming industry. Many triopical countries including Costa Rica, Malaysia, and New Guinea have encouraged people to go into business raising butterflies. These businesses range from people throwing screens over trees in their back yards to large facilities. The butterflies are sold as dead specimens to collectors world wide, or else as live puapae for incresingly-popular butterfly exibits at museums and zoos. If such an approach could be taken regarding animals in the pet trade, it would be a boon to both collectors around the world as well as the stuggling economies of many nations. For such a program to be successful, a massive adjustment of attitude of the governments, people, and international bodies must take place. How to make THAT happen is the sticking point.

Wade