Potential hobby setbacks

[pocock1899]

I haven't yet seen anything official from the USFW department that clearly states how Palp Friction violated USFW laws and regulations by importing the offspring of T. seladonia from Europe.

It would seem that European tarantula smugglers have been exploiting a loophole in the USFW wildlife importation law where tarantulas born and residing on European soil are legal, without regard to where the parents came from, providing the appropriate import license is possessed by a buyer in the USA. Then Brazil raised a fuss with the USFW to close that loophole by saying the tarantulas born in Europe from illegally collected parents should be illegal to.

When I deal with clients, I sometimes spend more time dissuading them of their preconceptions than explaining the real facts.
You absolutely can not take things for granted. Just because you "heard it", or "read it on the internet" does not make it fact.

A lot of people still think "Captive bred" means the same thing as "legal". It doesn't.
Same for hybridization. It doesn't make them legal either.

What USFWS is saying in that email is pretty clear to me. There is no loophole, only a percieved one.

It doesn't matter what country bred the illegally poached/smuggled animals. The offspring of illegal animals, and all of THEIR offspring will be illegal. You can never get legal animals from the breeding of illegal animals. Ever.
You can't "launder" them (even in another country) by breeding them, and expecting the offspring to be legal. It doesn't work that way.
The Lacey Act is set up to prevent people from profiting from illegal (like smuggled/poached) animals.

The animals that Palp Friction (and others) brought in were illegal, because they were bred from illegal animals.

The Lacey Act forbids the importation of illegal animals. It's pretty black and white.

I think sometimes, importers (especially in the US) tend to trust their brokers a little too much. They don't think about the fact that the broker has very little to lose, but the importer has EVERYTHING to lose.
This is not an old or unenforced law. Lots of people, from hunters to reptile hobbyists have had it used on them. The broker should have known that.
International trade is complicated, and Due Diligence is absolutely required. More than you can imagine.

 

[SonsofArachne]

I've followed many stories like this over the years, and I can tell you in countries with either bans on exporting certain species or all species one thing happens - the desirable species disappear at a FASTER rate. The ban increases demand, causing prices to soar and animals being smuggled at a faster rate, often in conditions that lead to the deaths of many animals. It happened with parrots in Central and South America, with reptiles in Australia, and many others. Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it stops - just look at the drug trade.
I've never understood why countries don't see this and set up legal captive breeding / export businesses - unless of course maybe government officials are involved in the smuggling, which has certainly happened in east Asian countries.

 

[zxneon]

How this affect keepers in europe ? You can say that in eu there is no borders , so there is no importing or exporting just transporting... So no one will take away lasiodoras and nhandus from people who own them ?

 

[pocock1899]

I've followed many stories like this over the years, and I can tell you in countries with either bans on exporting certain species or all species one thing happens - the desirable species disappear at a FASTER rate. The ban increases demand, causing prices to soar and animals being smuggled at a faster rate, often in conditions that lead to the deaths of many animals. It happened with parrots in Central and South America, with reptiles in Australia, and many others. Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it stops - just look at the drug trade.
I've never understood why countries don't see this and set up legal captive breeding / export businesses - unless of course maybe government officials are involved in the smuggling, which has certainly happened in east Asian countries.

That's not true. A perfect example is New Zealand, which banned the exports of all of it's animals, especially their unique geckos. Numbers have held steady and/or increased in their parks.
Parrots populations in Central and South America are rebounding after decades of collection for the pet trade.

An interesting item that you highlight here is that population declines in protected/regulated species can often be attributed to the illegal pet trade.
That, at least, IS true.

That is an excellent justification for a law like the Lacey Act. If people wouldn't poach and smuggle illegal animals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If pet hobbyists weren't so enthusiastic about buying and collecting rare and endangered species, there wouldn't be high prices or high demand for these animals. If hobbyists were more discerning about the sources of the animals they bought, there wouldn't be as much profitability in poaching and animal smuggling.

You make some good points.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

How this affect keepers in europe ? You can say that in eu there is no borders , so there is no importing or exporting just transporting... So no one will take away lasiodoras and nhandus from people who own them ?

Maaaan...

Europe is the land where (historically, T's talking) to sell the babies of WC gravid spooder-moms was the norm. This, back then. Today, with the (quite recent) 'Eastern front' boom, the whole thing 'exploded'

Seems to me that, here in Europe, what is important (e.g checked by the 'system') is to respect the CITES agreement.

Granted, if a particular nation decide to stop the import/export of some specimens, it's another story.

Enjoy your "lasiodoras and nhandus"

 

[SonsofArachne]

That's not true. A perfect example is New Zealand, which banned the exports of all of it's animals, especially their unique geckos. Numbers have held steady and/or increased in their parks.
Parrots populations in Central and South America are rebounding after decades of collection for the pet trade.

An interesting item that you highlight here is that population declines in protected/regulated species can often be attributed to the illegal pet trade.
That, at least, IS true.

That is an excellent justification for a law like the Lacey Act. If people wouldn't poach and smuggle illegal animals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If pet hobbyists weren't so enthusiastic about buying and collecting rare and endangered species, there wouldn't be high prices or high demand for these animals. If hobbyists were more discerning about the sources of the animals they bought, there wouldn't be as much profitability in poaching and animal smuggling.

You make some good points.

What I said is true, but of course their are exceptions. NZ is a small country with few desirable species, much easier to protect . Parrots are rebounding due to captive breeding which reduces demand, but protected rare species not being bred are still being smuggled. Australia has some of the strongest export laws, but reptile smuggling is still a big problem there. A problem to the point where Australian scientists won't release locality info on new species because they will plundered by smugglers.


Captive breeding for the pet trade ALWAYS reduces demand for wild animals by reducing prices - look no further than P. metallica if you need proof.

 

[pocock1899]

What I said is true, but of course their are exceptions. NZ is a small country with few desirable species, much easier to protect . Parrots are rebounding due to captive breeding which reduces demand, but protected rare species not being bred are still being smuggled. Australia has some of the strongest export laws, but reptile smuggling is still a big problem there. A problem to the point where Australian scientists won't release locality info on new species because they will plundered by smugglers.


Captive breeding for the pet trade ALWAYS reduces demand for wild animals by reducing prices - look no further than P. metallica if you need proof.

Practically no scientists, anywhere in the world will release data on locales of new, desirable species. There's nothing unique about that.
And what reduced the poaching of parrots was not captive breeding, it was the Wild Bird Protection Act in the US, combined with CITES worldwide. It shut off the major markets of WC birds. Now, (with a few exceptions) it's practically impossible to get WC birds into the pet trade.

And P. metallica was/is only rarely poached because no one could find them. Unfortunately, that's still the case. It's not that no one would poach them, it's just that there are so few wild ones remaining that it's practically impossible to find them!

I'm not sure where you get your information on poaching, but the whole illegal animal trade has little to do with captive breeding. Price is the main determinant of poaching/smuggling. If an animal is worth the time and trouble to poach it, someone will poach it.
Parrots in the US are a good example. Just about any species of Macaw or Amazon is available for purchase, captive bred. However, the prices are so high for CB birds that it's still worth the poachers time and trouble to smuggle in WC amazon parrots through our Southern Border. Birds are found on a weekly basis there.
If people were to find a good source of P. metallicain the wild, there would certainly be smuggling. The price of an Adult CB spider means that there are plenty of people who would pay top dollar for a smuggled adult. Captive breeding doesn't mean anything when you are talking about high dollar animals. Smugglers don't care about how rare or common it is, they only care whether it pays. It can be routinely bred, and common as dirt. But if there's money in it, someone will smuggle it, because many/most hobbyists care more about how much an animal costs, rather than where it came from.

T. seladonia is the perfect example.

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

What I said is true, but of course their are exceptions. NZ is a small country with few desirable species, much easier to protect . Parrots are rebounding due to captive breeding which reduces demand, but protected rare species not being bred are still being smuggled. Australia has some of the strongest export laws, but reptile smuggling is still a big problem there. A problem to the point where Australian scientists won't release locality info on new species because they will plundered by smugglers.


Captive breeding for the pet trade ALWAYS reduces demand for wild animals by reducing prices - look no further than P. metallica if you need proof.

Pet stores push wild caught too ,surprised Grammasta aren’t endangered . I’m worried about haplos in Asian markets being eaten at a rate that guarantees extinction within 10-20 years or less .
Asians &!illegal finning of sharks could make them extinct in a few as 5 years. Maybe a few species at a time , then all of them .

 

[SonsofArachne]

Practically no scientists, anywhere in the world will release data on locales of new, desirable species. There's nothing unique about that.
And what reduced the poaching of parrots was not captive breeding, it was the Wild Bird Protection Act in the US, combined with CITES worldwide. It shut off the major markets of WC birds. Now, (with a few exceptions) it's practically impossible to get WC birds into the pet trade.

And P. metallica was/is only rarely poached because no one could find them. Unfortunately, that's still the case. It's not that no one would poach them, it's just that there are so few wild ones remaining that it's practically impossible to find them!

I'm not sure where you get your information on poaching, but the whole illegal animal trade has little to do with captive breeding. Price is the main determinant of poaching/smuggling. If an animal is worth the time and trouble to poach it, someone will poach it.
Parrots in the US are a good example. Just about any species of Macaw or Amazon is available for purchase, captive bred. However, the prices are so high for CB birds that it's still worth the poachers time and trouble to smuggle in WC amazon parrots through our Southern Border. Birds are found on a weekly basis there.
If people were to find a good source of P. metallicain the wild, there would certainly be smuggling. The price of an Adult CB spider means that there are plenty of people who would pay top dollar for a smuggled adult. Captive breeding doesn't mean anything when you are talking about high dollar animals. Smugglers don't care about how rare or common it is, they only care whether it pays. It can be routinely bred, and common as dirt. But if there's money in it, someone will smuggle it, because many/most hobbyists care more about how much an animal costs, rather than where it came from.

T. seladonia is the perfect example.

Now scientists don't release location data, but in the they recent past they did, which leads to poaching. The laws in those countries are not a factor. Here's some recent articles:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-10...ered-species-might-be-putting-them-harm-s-way

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-find-hunt-kill-animals-chinese-a7763156.html

If captive breeding of parrots doesn't reduce smuggling how come no one smuggles budgies or cockatiel's? But less commonly bred are still being smuggled regularly. Here's some recent articles:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42021915

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...fe-trafficking-reptiles-mexico-united-states/

As far P. metallica goes if someone found a new source their might be some smuggling - but not as much if they found them, say, 5 yrs ago when prices were much higher. But now most, if not all, major dealers are breeding or buying them from breeders, why would anyone risk buying smuggled spiders? Unless the smuggled spiders cost was much LESS than the captive bred ones. You are right about money being the major factor, which means commonly bred species with reduced prices are not smuggled. Do really think anyone would risk jail time smuggling a readily available, low priced animal? That makes no sense. As far as your faith in laws to stop poaching, just look at the US's war on drugs to see how well just making something illegal stops smuggling. I'm not saying laws don't help, but at best they slow the tide.

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

That's not true. A perfect example is New Zealand, which banned the exports of all of it's animals, especially their unique geckos. Numbers have held steady and/or increased in their parks.
Parrots populations in Central and South America are rebounding after decades of collection for the pet trade.

An interesting item that you highlight here is that population declines in protected/regulated species can often be attributed to the illegal pet trade.
That, at least, IS true.

That is an excellent justification for a law like the Lacey Act. If people wouldn't poach and smuggle illegal animals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If pet hobbyists weren't so enthusiastic about buying and collecting rare and endangered species, there wouldn't be high prices or high demand for these animals. If hobbyists were more discerning about the sources of the animals they bought, there wouldn't be as much profitability in poaching and animal smuggling.

You make some good points.

so true . Making something illegal often kills it off much faster , big money I often not in tarantula market. Snakes can be worth $1000s so not that inverts aren’t brought in.
Australia is a few 100 years late there most notable megafauna is extinct. But good that modern conservation is working. Hope a mad scientist can bring back the 12 foot bird & the Tasmanian tiger , biggest marsupial.

 

[darkness975]

So basically the hobby is doomed.

 

[zxneon]

So basically the hobby is doomed.

stop talking like this . Heresy !!!

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Heresy !!!

Ah ah

 

[pocock1899]

Now scientists don't release location data, but in the they recent past they did, which leads to poaching.

I'm not sure you even read my posts. You certainly don't seem to be understanding them. Both your arguments, and your attempt at Google rebuttals just reinforce what I said.

In post#87 that scientists typically no longer release location data on new, desirable species

If captive breeding of parrots doesn't reduce smuggling how come no one smuggles budgies or cockatiel's? But less commonly bred are still being smuggled regularly.

And why bring up budgies?
I clearly stated: "...the whole illegal animal trade has little to do with captive breeding. Price is the main determinant of poaching/smuggling. If an animal is worth the time and trouble to poach it, someone will poach it."

If you have ever been to a bird show, you can pick up budgies for $10-12. Some commonly traded birds that were never threatened, like budgies and cockatiels, are specifically exempted under the Wild Bird Protection Act. The Eclectus, Cockatoos and Hyacinth Macaws in that article sell thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

As far P. metallica goes if someone found a new source their might be some smuggling - but not as much if they found them, say, 5 yrs ago when prices were much higher.

That's not really something you can say, as it's just a guess on your part. A biased, hopeful guess. Someone might take an alternative view:
Actually, now that more people have them and people have wrapped their heads around spiderlings that cost $100, there might be an argument that the market would be even bigger. People are buying them in groups now, just to have communals. The prices haven't dropped all that much, and the demand still outstrips the supply. A wild caught supply would just step right in.

But the reality is that we won't see more P. metallica. The reality is that the pet trade contributed to their virtual extirpation in the wild, almost as much as development.

As far as your faith in laws to stop poaching, just look at the US's war on drugs to see how well just making something illegal stops smuggling. I'm not saying laws don't help, but at best they slow the tide.

This is called a Straw Man argument. We aren't talking about drug smuggling. If you are running out of justifications for your arguments, then say so. Don't start arguing about other things. I'm willing to freely admit you might have more experience with the drug smuggling trade than me.

I'm glad to debate this with you, but I'm just not going to reply if want to take the argument off into the weeds.

And just to be clear, I'm a self professed arsehole about this. I don't care if I upset folks by saying things that are critical of the Hobby. I think someone needs to speak critically.
I'm not trying to change your mind, or convince you of anything. I don't care whether you believe or agree with me.
I'm hoping to straighten out some general misunderstandings about legal issues regarding the hobby and Federal Law. I have some good accurate information, and I'm hoping to use it to benefit the hobby. Arachnoboards is a good venue to share information.

I have over forty years in the hobby and thirty years dealing with international trade in exotic species. I've watched smuggling of species come and go. ...but mostly come.
I've seen the hobby ignored by law enfocement, until the species in the hobby have gotten so rare; and the hobby large enough and visible enough that it's now under the microscope.
(I'm not going to post what I do, or my employer, because I'm not speaking on their behalf.)

Typhoclaena seladonia is a perfect example of how some people, (but maybe the hobby as a whole) has come to think that it can ignore the laws in the rest of the world. They think that they can justify getting ANY species they want by merely saying that the species is endangered in the wild.
You might say the people were caught unawares, that they didn't know the spiders were smuggled. I wonder if they EVEN ASKED. I think it's been pretty well known in the hobby for years that Brazil does not export spiders. Did the US importers even bother to ask how these spiders came into the hobby. Did they care? If not, that really doesn't speak well of their due diligence or their conservation credentials. Is this really about saving a species, or making lots of money off of a high dollar species?

Some people try use the words "habitat destruction" as if they magically justify smuggling and poaching.

The same people often buy from collectors that do as much (or more) damage as development.
Then, rather than send these rare species into the hands of scientists and institutions (who might keep records, breed them and return animals to the wild), they sell them to collectors in the hobby for HUGE amounts of money. They sell singles, and they give singles away as raffles. When has the hobby EVER helped a species? How many endangred species have been kept with clean bloodlines, without interbreeding, and then returned to the wild ...by the Hobby?

If conservation is REALLY the goal, they are apparently clueless about how to do it. If money is the goal (at the cost of the species), then they certainly have their act together.

Don't pretend these beautiful, desirable, high dollar, rare species are being smuggled, poached and brown-boxed "for conservation". ..They aren't. If you don't know this, then you don't know crap about science, or you are deliberatly looking the other way and don't care.

 

[SonsofArachne]

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it . But you don't seem to get my point. It's nice to have high-minded conservation goals but the reality is when people want something bad enough other people will supply it to them, drugs, animals, or whatever. I'm not saying this a good thing, far from it, but you have to face reality. But you don't want to see what I'm saying, clearly, so I'll say it again - Animals that are commonly captive bred are not smuggled, therefore captive breeding of desirable species would reduce or eliminate demand for smuggled animals, period. That is obviously why I brought up budgies, common in the wild and bred in captivity, so that its not Australia's laws that protect them, but that no one would bother to smuggle them. I know it's not possible for every desirable species, but these governments, Australia, Brazil, and many others, aren't even trying. Local people in these countries could be trained and set up with breeding stock, maybe from confiscated animals, helping both the local and national economies. This might, or might not work, but we'll never know if no one tries.
And stopping the import of captive bred T. seldonia from europe will not help any more than stopping the import of captive bred P. metallica would have helped them. Good or bad these animals are in captivity now and somehow I don't see any of these governments coming up with the money to repatriate them, so stopping the trade of captive bred animals can only hurt these species.
But you seem to think attacking this hobby and the people in it is going to help, like I'm going feel guilty because the ancestors of my P. metallica may have been smuggled. Would not buying a captive bred P. metallica change that? Maybe we should all ship our P. metallica's back to India so they can die over there. Again I'm not saying smuggling is a good thing, but once they are being captive bred they might as well be legal because there's no going back at that point.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

I've seen the hobby ignored by law enfocement, until the species in the hobby have gotten so rare; and the hobby large enough and visible enough that it's now under the microscope.

That's why, since forever, I've always said that the arachnid keeping should remain a niche one, but no, God damn it, no!

Everyone (not you or the presents here, uh) always said sugar-coated stuff like: 'It's good that the hobby grew up...' and etc and blah.

Result: the more bigger something become, the more % of hustlers jump inside, more cash involved, more eyes on that (unwanted, mostly, let's be honest, such YT visibility) = the more % chances to awake the sleeping dog.

I pray that in Italy we could remain in low numbers, we already had a ban and the last thing we need is drag a somewhat 'mainstream' attention

 

[pocock1899]

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it . But you don't seem to get my point. It's nice to have high-minded conservation goals but the reality is when people want something bad enough other people will supply it to them, drugs, animals, or whatever. I'm not saying this a good thing, far from it, but you have to face reality.

I honestly do understand your argument. I get the whole "There will always be evil" mindset.
It seems you're main argument is because a law isn't 100% effective, we shouldn't have it?
That's a pretty absurd and selfish argument, especially because it seems you're only real reasoning is because you want a spider you can't have.

But you don't want to see what I'm saying, clearly, so I'll say it again - Animals that are commonly captive bred are not smuggled, therefore captive breeding of desirable species would reduce or eliminate demand for smuggled animals, period. That is obviously why I brought up budgies, common in the wild and bred in captivity, so that its not Australia's laws that protect them, but that no one would bother to smuggle them.

We aren't talking about budgies here. You and I both know that prices for T. seladonia (or even P. metallica) will never be low enough that the most hobbyists will ever buy them. You'll never see vendors handing them out as freebie, just for stopping by their booth at a show. It doesn't matter. No one needs a T. seladonia. It's just a pretty, expensive spider that has become an internet celebrity species. What does it say about a hobby, when so many people whine about not being able to possess a spider that is 100% poached?

I know it's not possible for every desirable species, but these governments, Australia, Brazil, and many others, aren't even trying. Local people in these countries could be trained and set up with breeding stock, maybe from confiscated animals, helping both the local and national economies. This might, or might not work, but we'll never know if no one tries.

Lots of countries and NGO's are doing this, all over the world. No one is doing it with spiders because, presently, they just aren't high enough in priority. China charges foreign zoos a million dollars a year for the loan of a Panda for a zoo. A Panda exhibit brings in that much revenue, and much of it goes (supposedly) goes back to China for conservation. When spider exhibits start bringing in the public like that, you'll start seeing that money being spent on programs like you describe.
It's always so easy to sit back and say how much better WE can do conservation than THEY can. Because then, in your mind, that justifies buying poached or illegal spiders. Like you are actually doing real conservations in a bunch of tupperwares in your closet. This hobby has nothing to do with conservation. It's the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn countries for what they "should" be doing, in your opinion, then turn around and help finance the people poaching an raping their environment.
Maybe this hobby should do something like conservation, instead of funding smuggling, brown boxing and poaching? Maybe you should spend more time arguing for conservation, rather than enabling poaching and smuggling.

And stopping the import of captive bred T. seldonia from europe will not help any more than stopping the import of captive bred P. metallica would have helped them. Good or bad these animals are in captivity now and somehow I don't see any of these governments coming up with the money to repatriate them, so stopping the trade of captive bred animals can only hurt these species.

It can, and it might. No one ever really tried to stop the import or trade of P. metallica. It basically had a free ride.
That's not the case with T. seladonia. Additionally I've yet to see anywhere near the numbers of seladonia that there were of metallica. In the US, they may only be 100 or few individual. Stopping the imports now, or at least slowing them down to a trickle will put a huge damper on the of the biggest markets for smuggled spiders in the world. The United States.

But you seem to think attacking this hobby and the people in it is going to help, like I'm going feel guilty because the ancestors of my P. metallica may have been smuggled. Would not buying a captive bred P. metallica change that? Maybe we should all ship our P. metallica's back to India so they can die over there. Again I'm not saying smuggling is a good thing, but once they are being captive bred they might as well be legal because there's no going back at that point.

I really don't care what you think. If you don't have a twinge of guilt knowing that you are contributing to the extinction of species like P. metallica or T. seladona, just because you feel self-entitled enough to own any spider you want, then you're not worth me worrying about. You argue that someone should set up breeding programs, then you ridicule the idea of sending spiders back to the countries so that they could do that.
Don't think of it as an attack on the hobby. Think of it as a personal attack on you, and your attitude which has become too well established in the hobby. Until people take it personally, they'll just shuffle it off and think "Well, MY spiders don't really make a difference". I'm hoping there are people in the hobby that are in it because they care about the spiders and conservation, not because they care how big or rare their collection is.

 

[Venom1080]

So what steps would you recommend for the hobby? In terms of conservation over buying whatever we like?

In what ways can we really contribute? Are there any besides not buying certain species?

 

[SonsofArachne]

I honestly do understand your argument. I get the whole "There will always be evil" mindset.
It seems you're main argument is because a law isn't 100% effective, we shouldn't have it?
That's a pretty absurd and selfish argument, especially because it seems you're only real reasoning is because you want a spider you can't have.


We aren't talking about budgies here. You and I both know that prices for T. seladonia (or even P. metallica) will never be low enough that the most hobbyists will ever buy them. You'll never see vendors handing them out as freebie, just for stopping by their booth at a show. It doesn't matter. No one needs a T. seladonia. It's just a pretty, expensive spider that has become an internet celebrity species. What does it say about a hobby, when so many people whine about not being able to possess a spider that is 100% poached?


Lots of countries and NGO's are doing this, all over the world. No one is doing it with spiders because, presently, they just aren't high enough in priority. China charges foreign zoos a million dollars a year for the loan of a Panda for a zoo. A Panda exhibit brings in that much revenue, and much of it goes (supposedly) goes back to China for conservation. When spider exhibits start bringing in the public like that, you'll start seeing that money being spent on programs like you describe.
It's always so easy to sit back and say how much better WE can do conservation than THEY can. Because then, in your mind, that justifies buying poached or illegal spiders. Like you are actually doing real conservations in a bunch of tupperwares in your closet. This hobby has nothing to do with conservation. It's the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn countries for what they "should" be doing, in your opinion, then turn around and help finance the people poaching an raping their environment.
Maybe this hobby should do something like conservation, instead of funding smuggling, brown boxing and poaching? Maybe you should spend more time arguing for conservation, rather than enabling poaching and smuggling.



It can, and it might. No one ever really tried to stop the import or trade of P. metallica. It basically had a free ride.
That's not the case with T. seladonia. Additionally I've yet to see anywhere near the numbers of seladonia that there were of metallica. In the US, they may only be 100 or few individual. Stopping the imports now, or at least slowing them down to a trickle will put a huge damper on the of the biggest markets for smuggled spiders in the world. The United States.


I really don't care what you think. If you don't have a twinge of guilt knowing that you are contributing to the extinction of species like P. metallica or T. seladona, just because you feel self-entitled enough to own any spider you want, then you're not worth me worrying about. You argue that someone should set up breeding programs, then you ridicule the idea of sending spiders back to the countries so that they could do that.
Don't think of it as an attack on the hobby. Think of it as a personal attack on you, and your attitude which has become too well established in the hobby. Until people take it personally, they'll just shuffle it off and think "Well, MY spiders don't really make a difference". I'm hoping there are people in the hobby that are in it because they care about the spiders and conservation, not because they care how big or rare their collection is.

You really aren't understanding me because you keep putting words in my mouth that I never said to push your beliefs.

"It seems you're main argument is because a law isn't 100% effective, we shouldn't have it?
That's a pretty absurd and selfish argument, especially because it seems you're only real reasoning is because you want a spider you can't have."
- never said that , in fact in a earlier post I said laws are helpful but only slow the tide. And fact is I was offered a T. seladona earlier this year and one of the reasons I didn't buy was that the dealer was vague when I asked about captive breeding. would I have bought a captive bred one? maybe, because I still doubt if they're ever going back to Brazil for the very reason you said - "No one is doing it with spiders because, presently, they just aren't high enough in priority".

"It's always so easy to sit back and say how much better WE can do conservation than THEY can. Because then, in your mind, that justifies buying poached or illegal spiders. Like you are actually doing real conservations in a bunch of tupperwares in your closet. This hobby has nothing to do with conservation. It's the height of hypocrisy for you to condemn countries for what they "should" be doing, in your opinion, then turn around and help finance the people poaching an raping their environment.
Maybe this hobby should do something like conservation, instead of funding smuggling, brown boxing and poaching? Maybe you should spend more time arguing for conservation, rather than enabling poaching and smuggling."
- This whole section is bull, you don't know me so don't assume you know what I've done for conservation. And no I don't think my keeping inverts is conservation.

"No one ever really tried to stop the import or trade of P. metallica"
- So should I get in my time machine and try stop the poaching? I wasn't there and wasn't involved. Again how would my not owning one help at this point?

"I really don't care what you think. If you don't have a twinge of guilt knowing that you are contributing to the extinction of species like P. metallica or T. seladona, just because you feel self-entitled enough to own any spider you want, then you're not worth me worrying about. You argue that someone should set up breeding programs, then you ridicule the idea of sending spiders back to the countries so that they could do that."
- It's obvious you don't care what I think by the way you ignore my points, twist my words, and make assumptions about me based on nothing. And no I don't feel guilty about things I can't change. But I tell you what, let me know when India starts reforesting and protecting the Gooty region and asks for P. metallica's and I will be happy to breed mine and send all her babies back to India free of charge.

I'm done with this conversation. All I was saying was there need to be new ways of doing things because the current way isn't working. But you twisted it into attacks on me (based on nothing) and this hobby. I was interested in a exchange of ideas not a 'I'm right you're a jerk' argument. I not going to waste my time on nonsense.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

So what steps would you recommend for the hobby? In terms of conservation over buying whatever we like?

In what ways can we really contribute? Are there any besides not buying certain species?

Yes, you can do your part for save the hobby

Just do this:

1) Release in the wild ASAP (no matter where) ALL of your CB - and not - T's. Animals deserve to live and wander free. Don't worry, some liberal will re-catch those spooders, blaming the Prez or sumthin in the process

2) Send all of your money/land/promissory notes etc to Chris LXXIX - the man that is fighting the good ethic battle.

3) Reach a monastery, really deep in the woods, and tell to the Abbot that you were nothing but a miserable sinner, that moved away from our Lord, Jesus Christ.

4) Live in said monastery for a good 40/50 years, no smoking/sex/music/whatever only prayers and hard work in the fields. At evening, a supper, prayer, and bed.

5) Done. Hobby and a Soul saved.

Mind, this is important, especially point 2