Smart Research

Articles species Palm Oil Detectives Eastern Long-beaked Echidna Zaglossus bartoni Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Wild cat carnivores in Borneo may adjust their schedules to avoid each other Read the article Original scientific article Palm Oil Detectives Bird species are facing extinction hundreds of times faster than previously thought Read the article Palm Oil Detectives If You Love Moo Deng, Help to Save Her Home ! Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Huon Tree Kangaroo Dendrolagus matschiei Read the article Palm Oil Detectives D’Entrecasteaux Archipelago Pogonomys Pogonomys fergussoniensis Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Blue-eyed Cockatoo Cacatua ophthalmica Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Pig-tailed Snub-nosed Langur Simias concolor Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Black Dorcopsis Dorcopsis atrata Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Timneh Parrot Psittacus timneh Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Doria's Tree Kangaroo Dendrolagus dorianus Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Sunda Clouded Leopard Neofelis diardi Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Thomas’s Langur Presbytis thomasi Read the article Palm Oil Detectives Spectral Tarsier Tarsius tarsier Read the article

Direct sheets mammals Find, check and signal ! Apes (Hominidae) Armadillo Binturong Bats Capybara Dugong Fennec fox Galago (Bush baby) Kinkajou Lion Loris, pottos and angwantibos Manatee Monkeys Pygmy hippopotamus Pyrenean desman Saiga antelope Sugar glider Tiger Wallaby Wombat

Articles More information about wildlife and threats Species Scientific articles Laws and politics

CONTACT Twitter/X : Ouranos project (@OuranosProject) / Twitter Mail : ouranosproject2023@gmail.com Instagram : @ouranos524 Name E-mail Phone number Object Message Send Thank you for your message !

Articles - laws and geopolitics OURANOS Project - Team ZAN The Legal and Conservation Battle for the Okinawa Dugong Read the article Sumatra Ecoproject What You Should Know About Law Enforcement and Wildlife Crime in Sumatra Read the article Palm Oil Detectives PalmWatch: A Tool to Hold Palm Oil Greenwashers to Account Read the article

Saiga antelope Saiga Saiga antelope. Credit: Richard Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters Localization Saiga tatartica : middle Asie Saiga mongoliana : Mongolia Threats Traditional medicine Poaching Diseases Population Growing populations I.U.C.N. : N.T. - Near Threatened (updated 11/12/2023) C.I.T.E.S : Appendix II Bonn Convention : Appendix II Trade Global Asia : The horns of males are very popular in traditional Asian medicine. Chine (P.R.C.) : WORKSHOP ON THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF SAIGA ANTELOPE Urumqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China (27-29/09/2010) Unexplained catastrophic population declines and subsequent recoveries were observed throughout the species' range in the early to mid-1900s. The current decline can be attributed to the combined effects of changes in vegetation to species less palatable to saiga antelope, competition with domestic livestock, increased abundance of predators, disruption of migration routes, poaching and illegal trade. Continued poaching for meat and the illegal trade in horns are seriously exacerbating conservation efforts, especially at this time when all populations of the species are declining. [...] Sustainable use and trade regulation: Formalize the lines of communication started at the workshop (e.g. through the CITES range and consumer State authorities) and use these lines of communication to: i) Explore possible bilateral collaboration between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and range states ii) Develop options for the establishment of a fund or other enabling mechanism through which the TCM industry could provide financial, technical and human resources to range States to address identified and mutually agreed priorities for in situ restoration of saiga trees. iii) Identify and establish incentive programs that benefit local communities within the saiga range and gain their support for conservation efforts. iv) To explore the feasibility and means of using horns from natural sources, mortality, and government or judicial confiscations. (v) Continue efforts in China to verify and control reported stockpiles of saiga parts. Share lessons learned with other consumer and range States. (vi) Continue research to: a) reduce the use of saiga in traditional Chinese medicine and b) identify alternatives to saiga horn. vii) To consider elements of a possible long-term trade relationship between the MCT, industry and range States, which could serve as a means to prevent poaching and illegal trade in saiga antelope. (viii) Strengthen law enforcement cooperation (e.g. information or intelligence, experience, equipment, capacity building, etc.) between range and consumer States. (ix) Review and revise, as appropriate, national policies to ensure consistency with conservation and sustainable use objectives. Kazakhstan : Workshop on the Implementation and Coordination of the Saiga Antelope (Saiga spp.) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and other CMS Instruments for Migratory Ungulates in Kazakhstan (17-18/02/2011) The meeting, chaired by Mr. Khairbek Mussabaev (Forestry and Hunting Committee), confirmed [...] a dramatic increase in poaching exclusively targeting saiga horns, which are only worn by saiga males and is therefore likely to lead to a serious decline in males. The following priority measures for the conservation of saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan have been identified within the framework of the MTIWP 2011-2015: [...] Strengthen the relevant capacities of agencies involved in the prevention of illegal trade and export of horns and horn products, such as customs. The participants further [...] recommended: (i) to include the above-mentioned priorities in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and other sectoral development programmes in Kazakhstan (ii) improve coordination between government agencies involved in the fight against the saiga tree. conservation and protection (e.g., customs, police, border patrol) and (iii) improve the process of interaction and negotiation with the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine and enterprises, reiterating the recommendations of the Urumqi Saiga meeting in 2010. It has been reported that poaching in Betpak-dala has become more high-tech and that the population of Ustiurt continues to decline rapidly. Also, partnerships with Chinese agencies (CITES and the UNEP/CMS secretariat) were under negotiation at the time of writing. It was necessary to ensure that a bilateral project would not fuel the illegal trade in saiga horn. [...] For the population of Ustiurt, it is necessary to strengthen the fight against poaching, and for the population of Betpak-Dala, the need to strengthen the involvement of the local population in the conservation of the saiga tree. The increase in poaching of saiga horn was discussed with law enforcement agencies in the saiga area and with the Astana Prosecutor General's Office in 2010. The Ministry of Communication and Information has instructed its central and regional divisions to ban all advertising for the sale or trade of saiga horn in the media. Mr. Sergei Orlov, representative of the state-owned company Okhotzooprom, added that there were anecdotal reports of illegal structures in Kazakhstan that processed saiga horn and exported the crushed product. Until now, customs had not encountered such cases. The price of saiga horn is said to have increased, which has boosted the supply of saiga horn. It is also planned to improve the capacity and level of awareness of the services involved in the prevention of illegal trade and exports, including the customs services. Creation of resources and databases that can be consulted online, as part of the MOU. Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Russia and Turkmenistan: Saiga Antelope Memorandum of Understanding (2006) Noting that the Saiga antelope is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Washington, D.C., 1973); Concerned about the unsustainable or illegal domestic and international trade in specimens of the species; Aware that the CITES Standing Committee has recommended the development of a regional strategy for the conservation of the saiga antelope; Concerned that poaching and illegal trade in horns and other products, uncontrolled hunting, destruction of habitats and construction of irrigation canals, roads and other obstacles to natural dispersal and migration have contributed to the recent decline in saiga antelope populations, and that economic hardship, impoverishment of local communities and poor land-use planning are causes, which must be remedied to preserve the saiga antelope; Noting the need to improve the protection of the Saiga antelope and its habitats in each range State and the importance of regional cooperation for its conservation, restoration and sustainable use, including international trade; Recognizing that coordinated and concerted national and transboundary actions by the authorities of the range States responsible for the conservation and management of the Saiga Antelope, subregional, regional and international organizations, professional and trade associations, local communities, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders would enhance its conservation, its recovery and sustainable use, as well as those of habitats and ecosystems that are important to its long-term survival. The Parties AGREE to collaborate on the improvement of the conservation status of the Saiga Antelope throughout its range and to undertake national and joint activities to conserve, restore and sustainably use the species and habitats and ecosystems important for its long-term survival, including the measures specified in the Action Plan which is annexed to and forms an integral part of this Memorandum of Understanding. References : MOU Text | Saiga Antelope (cms.int) Saiga tatarica | CMS Espèces | CMS Saiga_WorkShop_Urumqi_FINAL_REPORT_English.pdf (cms.int) Meeting Recommendations_En_rev_3May11.pdf (cms.int) Meeting_Report_Eng_with_annexes_rev.pdf (cms.int) Saiga Conservation Alliance (11/12/2023)

Tiger Panthera tigris Localization Siberia, Eastern, Southern and South-Eastern Asia Threats Annual and perennial non-timber crops Wood plantations Pulp plantations Livestock farming Ranching Oil drilling Gas drilling Mining Quarrying Roads and railroads Hunting Tiger farms Trapping terrestrial animals Logging and wood harvesting War, civil unrest and military exercises Fire and fire suppression Dams and water management/use Industrial effluents Military effluents Storms and flooding Supersitions about protection and sexual boost Population Decreasing ; between 2608 and 3905 mature adults (best estimate: 3140) U.I.C.N. : E.N. - Endangered C.I.T.E.S : Appendix I (1987) E.U. listing : Annex A Trade International: All international commercial trade in Tigers, their parts, products and derivatives, has long been prohibited. Afghanistan: 17/05/2013 Suspension of all exports. France : Article L413-10 Version in force since 02 December 2021 Created by LAW No. 2021-1539 of 30 November 2021 - art. 46 - Code de l'environnement Ban on Acquiring and Breeding Non-Domestic Animals: It is prohibited to buy, sell, or breed non-domestic species for use in traveling shows. This ban takes effect two years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2023). Prohibition on Keeping and Transporting Non-Domestic Animals: Traveling shows cannot keep, transport, or use non-domestic animals for performances starting seven years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2028). Animal Welfare Provisions: Owners of affected animals will be provided with alternative accommodations ensuring the animals’ well-being. Exceptions: The Minister for Nature Protection can grant exceptions if suitable accommodations for the animals are unavailable. Certificates and Permits: New permits for keeping or showcasing non-domestic animals in traveling shows will no longer be issued, and existing permits will be revoked when animals leave. Animal Registration: Traveling establishments must register their animals in a national database within six months of the law’s promulgation. This law seeks to protect wildlife and promote humane treatment by phasing out the use of non-domestic animals in traveling shows. India: 26/03/2018 : The Management Authority of India has informed the Secretariat that the Government of India has banned the export for commercial purposes of all wild-taken specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III, subject to paragraph 2 below. India permits the export of cultivated varieties of plant species included in Appendices I and II and has indicated that all products, other than the wood and wood products in the form of logs, timber, stumps, roots, bark, chips, powder, flakes, dust and charcoal, produced from wild sourced (W) Dalbergia sissoo and Dalbergia latifolia and authorized for export by a CITES Comparable Certificate issued by the competent authorities of India are exempted from the general ban. Such Dalbergia sissoo and Dalbergia latifolia specimens are harvested legally as per the regional and national laws of India and as per the prescribed management (working) plans, which are based on silvicultural principles and all are covered under Legal Procurement Certificate; all the material are sold from the Government timber depots through auction or are legally procured and can be exported legally. Starting on the date of this Notification, all the CITES Comparable Certificates will be issued with a footnote, stating that the wild (W) source specimens are covered under Legal Procurement Certificate as per regional and national laws in India. Parties are urged to inform the Indian Management Authority and the Secretariat of any attempted violations. This Notification replaces Notification to the Parties No. 1999/39 of 31 May 1999. Laos: 21/11/2023 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE XIII IN THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Recommendation to suspend trade for commercial purposes with the Lao People's Democratic Republic in specimens of all CITES-listed species and other recommendations Suspension of all commercial trade in specimens of CITES-listed species. Annex SC77 RECOMMENDATIONS [SEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SC77 SUM. 6 (REV. 1)] Based on reporting from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and the findings and observations contained in document SC77 Doc. 41.2 on Asian big cats in captivity, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic should: complete the full audit of the tigers kept in captivity, including the analyses of the collection of DNA samples and photos to assist with identification of individual specimens identify any pure specimens of tigers referable to the mainland Southeast Asian lineage (also known as Panthera tigris corbetti ) and encourage facilities to engage in coordinated conservation breeding of such animals, if identified take measures to limit the number of tigers to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers by: restricting the breeding of tigers in captivity (sterilizing, separating male and female specimens), except for specimens of tigers referable to the mainland Southeast Asian lineage (also known as Panthera tigris corbetti ) not authorizing any further import of tiger live specimens, except for specimens of tigers referable to the mainland Southeast Asian lineage (also known as Panthera tigris corbetti ) for conservation breeding purposes prohibiting the establishment of any new tiger facilities implement stringent regulations for tiger husbandry standards to improve care and discourage expansion of captive-breeding facilities develop standard operating procedures for inspections and disposal of dead tiger specimens (including destruction of carcasses after verification of the dead individual) and train officials to undertake inspections and monitor the disposal of carcasses take measures to reduce the demand for tiger parts and derivatives through the implementation of campaigns and strategies taking into consideration the guidance in Resolution Conf. 17.4 (Rev. CoP19) on Demand reduction strategies to combat illegal trade in CITES-listed species and the outcomes in section 3 of the Big Cat Task Force outcomes document (see document SC77 Doc. 41.2) establish an appropriate advisory committee or mechanism with involvement of the CITES Secretariat and other relevant organizations and partners to provide advice on the transformation of commercial tiger farms inspect the tiger captive-breeding facility that the Secretariat could not visit and report to the Secretariat. United States : H.R. 263, the “Big Cat Public Safety Act,” which amends the Lacy Act (20/12/2022) The act revises the Lacey Act to impose stricter regulations on the trade, possession, breeding, and exhibition of big cats (lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, cougar, or hybrids). Key Provisions: Prohibited Activities: Importing, exporting, buying, selling, transporting, acquiring, possessing, or breeding big cats are prohibited unless exempt. Breeding Defined: Includes intentional or negligent propagation or failing to prevent reproduction. Exemptions: Entities like universities and wildlife sanctuaries may be exempt. Facilities with Class C licenses under the Animal Welfare Act can exhibit big cats if direct contact with the public is prohibited (with exceptions for professionals or conservation-related activities). Grandfather Clause: Owners may keep big cats born before the law's enactment but must register them with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Penalties: Violators face fines up to $20,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Each violation is treated as a separate offense. Forfeiture: Big cats bred or possessed in violation of the law are subject to forfeiture. Implementation: The Department of the Interior will issue regulations to enforce the act. This legislation aims to enhance the conservation of big cats, prioritize public safety, and reduce illegal trade. Rules through the United States : Alabama: Restrictions on exotic animals like giant snails, bobcats, and venomous reptiles unless permitted before 2021. No release of non-native animals without a license. Alaska: Broad restrictions on wildlife, including wolf hybrids and chimpanzees. Some pets, like ferrets, are legal without a permit. Arizona: Extensive restrictions require permits for many species like primates, foxes, and Gila monsters. Permits are issued for specific purposes like education. Arkansas: Large carnivores and primates are restricted unless permitted before set years. Some venomous reptiles are allowed with permits, and up to six captive-bred animals like raccoons can be owned without a permit. California: Prohibits most wild animals, including bears and primates, but allows hybrids like Savannah cats. Colorado: Most exotic animals like primates and raccoons are banned, but hedgehogs and sugar gliders are allowed without permits. Connecticut: Prohibits dangerous animals like bears and wolves. Limited ownership of primates allowed under specific conditions. Delaware: Requires permits for exotic animals; no comprehensive list of banned animals is provided. District of Columbia: Only common domestic pets like cats, dogs, and some birds are allowed. Exotic species are banned. Florida: Animals categorized into Classes I-III, with varying permit requirements. Non-dangerous animals like ferrets are exempt. Georgia: Strict permitting for wild animals like kangaroos and venomous snakes, while ferrets and sugar gliders are allowed under specific conditions. Hawaii: Most exotic animals, including hedgehogs and ferrets, are banned. A limited number of domesticated animals are permitted. Idaho: Prohibits animals harmful to agriculture, like wild boars and large cats. Llamas and guinea pigs are allowed without permits. Illinois: Restricts dangerous animals like large cats and wolves to organizations. Existing primates are allowed if registered. Indiana: Allows exotic animal ownership with permits for different classes, from squirrels to large predators. Iowa: Restricts dangerous wild animals unless permitted before 2007. Hybrids of domestic species are allowed. Kansas: Limits ownership of regulated animals like large cats, bears, and venomous snakes to approved facilities. Kentucky: Bans inherently dangerous animals like primates and bears. Some permits available for non-dangerous species. Louisiana: Requires permits for large snakes and prohibits endangered or dangerous species like bears and wolves. Maine: Broad restrictions on exotic pets like giraffes and kangaroos. Some exotic animals like coati are permitted. Maryland: Prohibits dangerous animals like primates and large cats unless registered before 2006. Massachusetts: Strict restrictions on endangered species and venomous reptiles. Ferrets allowed under specific conditions. Michigan: Restricts ownership of non-native species like large cats. Permits are available for captive-bred wildlife. Minnesota: Prohibits regulated animals like large cats unless registered before 2005. Mississippi: Requires liability insurance for permits to own inherently dangerous animals like elephants and primates. Missouri: Requires registration of dangerous reptiles and mammals with law enforcement. Montana: Requires annual permits for wild animals like large cats and bears. Many small exotics are legal without permits. Nebraska: Captive wildlife permits needed for most wild animals, excluding certain species like skunks and bears. Nevada: Relatively lenient, banning certain species like alligators but allowing primates and large cats. New Hampshire: Controlled species like armadillos and cougars require permits. New Jersey: Permits required for many species, including ferrets and primates. Some small animals are exempt. New Mexico: Regulates zoonotic disease carriers like skunks and raccoons; local laws may impose additional restrictions. New York: Prohibits most wild animals and hybrids; fines imposed for violations. North Carolina: Exotic pet laws vary by county or city; no statewide restrictions. North Dakota: Dangerous or hazardous animals like zebras and primates require licenses. Ohio: Strict laws after a 2011 incident, banning dangerous wild animals like tigers and bears without permits. Oklahoma: Permits required for venomous reptiles, while many exotic animals are exempt from regulation. Oregon: Prohibits wild cat species and large predators; permits available for service monkeys. Pennsylvania: Exotic wildlife permits required for animals like lions, wolves, and venomous snakes. Rhode Island: Only specific organizations can own wild carnivores like lions and tigers. South Carolina: Restricts large cats and apes unless registered by 2018. South Dakota: Permits required for most exotic animals, with specific rules for raccoon dogs. Tennessee: Classifies animals by risk level, requiring permits for certain classes. Texas: Requires a certificate of registration for dangerous wild animals like wild cats and primates. Utah: Controlled, noncontrolled, and prohibited animals require different levels of permitting. Vermont: Requires permits for exotic animals not on the unrestricted list. Virginia: Exotic animals like wild cats and crocodiles require permits. Washington: Prohibits dangerous animals like bears and venomous snakes. West Virginia: Requires permits with strict conditions for keeping wild animals. Wisconsin: Requires licenses for wild animals, but some, like opossums and ground squirrels, are exempt. Wyoming: Requires permits for most wildlife unless specifically exempted. Highlights: Stringent Restrictions: Hawaii, California, and New York are among the strictest states. Lenient Laws: Indiana and Nevada allow more exotic animals with fewer restrictions. Common Prohibitions: Dangerous animals like large cats, bears, primates, and venomous reptiles are frequently restricted. Permits: Most states offer permits for special cases like education or scientific purposes. Did you find a tiger (body, skin, bones...) for sale ? Indonesia Bukit Lawang, Bohorok North Sumatra, Indonesia Sumatra Ecoproject : info@sumeco.id Website : SUMECO (Sumatra Ecoproject) - Wildlife Conservation in Bukit Lawang, North Sumatra OURANOS Project : ouranosproject2023@gmail.com Sumatra Ecoproject OURANOS Project References : Panthera tigris (Tiger) (iucnredlist.org) Bills Signed: H.R. 263, H.R. 1193, H.R. 5796, H.R. 7077, S. 198, S. 231, S. 1617, S. 2796, S. 3092, S. 3115, S. 3499, S. 3662, S. 3875 | The White House Laws on Exotic Animals for Each State H.R.263 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Big Cat Public Safety Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress Species+ (speciesplus.net) Publications Office (europa.eu) Letter template (cites.org) Notification to the Parties No. 2018/031 (cites.org) 3kteyyvept_skin_and_bones_tiger_trafficking_analysis_from_january_2000_to_june_2022_r7.pdf (worldwildlife.org) Section 3: Provisions relating to animals of non-domestic species kept in captivity for entertainment purposes (Articles L413-9 to L413-14) - Légifrance

Albatros d'Amsterdam Diomedea amsterdamensis Vincent Legendre Albatros d'amsterdam poussin.jpg 01/01/2005 Localization Amsterdam and St. Paul's Islands (T.A.A.F., France), Austral Islands Threats Introduced species (including Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae), exploitation of fishery resources Population 92 mature individuals, non-fragmented populations, increasing U.I.C.N. : C.R. - Critically endangered C.I.T.E.S : Not indexed Trade France : Ministerial Decree of 14 August 1998 The destruction or removal of eggs or nests, the destruction, mutilation, capture or naturalization of individuals wherever they may be, living or dead, their transport, peddling, use, offering for sale, sale or purchase are prohibited. Article L413-10 Version in force since 02 December 2021 Created by LAW No. 2021-1539 of 30 November 2021 - art. 46 - Code de l'environnement Ban on Acquiring and Breeding Non-Domestic Animals: It is prohibited to buy, sell, or breed non-domestic species for use in traveling shows. This ban takes effect two years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2023). Prohibition on Keeping and Transporting Non-Domestic Animals: Traveling shows cannot keep, transport, or use non-domestic animals for performances starting seven years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2028). Animal Welfare Provisions: Owners of affected animals will be provided with alternative accommodations ensuring the animals’ well-being. Exceptions: The Minister for Nature Protection can grant exceptions if suitable accommodations for the animals are unavailable. Certificates and Permits: New permits for keeping or showcasing non-domestic animals in traveling shows will no longer be issued, and existing permits will be revoked when animals leave. Animal Registration: Traveling establishments must register their animals in a national database within six months of the law’s promulgation. This law seeks to protect wildlife and promote humane treatment by phasing out the use of non-domestic animals in traveling shows. Australia : Department of Environment and Heritage 2006 Plan to Reduce the Threat of Bycatch of Seabirds in Ocean Longline Operations 2006. References : Diomedea amsterdamensis (Amsterdam Albatross) (iucnredlist.org) PNA_albatros_amsterdam_2018-2027.pdf (biodiversite.gouv.fr) Section 3: Provisions relating to animals of non-domestic species kept in captivity for entertainment purposes (Articles L413-9 to L413-14) - Légifrance

Dugong Dugong dugon Localisation Indian and Pacific Ocean coasts Red Sea Arabian Sea Threats Urbanization Navigation Fishing Recreation Industrial, military, agricultural and forestry pollution Storms and floods Human and Veterinary Medicine Handicraft Human food Population Decreasing U.I.C.N. : Global : V.U. - Vulnerable East African subpopulation : C.R. - Critically Endangered Nansei subpopulation : C.R. - Critically Endangered New Caledonia subpopulation : E.N. - Endangered C.I.T.E.S : Appendix I (19/07/2000) African Convention of Nature and Natural Resources : Class A (16/06/1969) Trade International : MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF DUGONGS (Dugong dugon) AND THEIR HABITATS THROUGHOUT THEIR RANGE (Abu Dhabi, 31/10/2007) : Noting that dugongs have a priority for conservation action through their listing in the respective appendices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). African Union : AFRICAN CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (Date of Adoption: 15/09/1968, Date of last signature: 24/01/2013, Date entry into force: 16/06/1969) Dugong dugon - Dugong : Class A Australia : In some regions of Australia, hunting is still permitted, according to quotas that are not always sustainable. Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 Current as at 1 September 2024 Dugongs and Marine Turtles: Selling or distributing these animals or their derivatives in commercial food premises is prohibited. France : The species has been protected in Mayotte since 1995 and several actions have been carried out to ensure compliance with these regulations (§1.13.2). In addition, with the decrease in the number of dugongs, it seems that its exploitation is no longer anchored in local traditions. However, dugong meat is still considered a delicacy and is sold at the price of the noblest fish (about 5€/kg). The high price of this meat and the mass of an animal (150 to 300 kg) mean that animals caught accidentally are systematically kept to consume and/or sell the meat illegally. Article L413-10 Version in force since 02 December 2021 Created by LAW No. 2021-1539 of 30 November 2021 - art. 46 - Code de l'environnement Ban on Acquiring and Breeding Non-Domestic Animals: It is prohibited to buy, sell, or breed non-domestic species for use in traveling shows. This ban takes effect two years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2023). Prohibition on Keeping and Transporting Non-Domestic Animals: Traveling shows cannot keep, transport, or use non-domestic animals for performances starting seven years after the law’s enactment (November 30, 2028). Animal Welfare Provisions: Owners of affected animals will be provided with alternative accommodations ensuring the animals’ well-being. Exceptions: The Minister for Nature Protection can grant exceptions if suitable accommodations for the animals are unavailable. Certificates and Permits: New permits for keeping or showcasing non-domestic animals in traveling shows will no longer be issued, and existing permits will be revoked when animals leave. Animal Registration: Traveling establishments must register their animals in a national database within six months of the law’s promulgation. This law seeks to protect wildlife and promote humane treatment by phasing out the use of non-domestic animals in traveling shows. Japan : Dugongs are considered as living monuments in Japan. Okinawa dugongs (Nansei subpopulation) habitat is threatened by American bases, causing debates and controversies. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 402 The NHPA mandates that U.S. federal agencies must avoid or mitigate harm to places or things of cultural significance to other countries. The Okinawa dugong, listed as a cultural monument under Japan’s Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, is one such entity. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), in its handling of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) project, failed to directly assess the environmental and cultural impacts of the project on the dugong population. Instead, it deferred to the Japanese government's evaluation. The court ruled that the NHPA requires the head of the responsible federal agency—in this case, the DOD—to independently consider and mitigate these effects. This failure to comply led to the court’s finding that the DOD violated Section 402 of the NHPA, compelling corrective actions to address the environmental and cultural harms of the project. Japan’s Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties Under Japan’s legal framework, the dugong is recognized as a cultural monument of national significance. This designation emphasizes its dual importance as both an endangered marine species and a cultural icon for the Okinawan people. The construction of the U.S. airbase in Henoko Bay poses a direct threat to the seagrass habitat essential for the survival of the dugong, exacerbating its critically endangered status. Despite Japan’s legal protections, the ongoing military base expansion raises concerns about the balance between cultural preservation and national security. Endangered Species Protections The dugong is listed as critically endangered by Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and is also included on the U.S. Endangered Species List. Conservation efforts are imperative given that fewer than 50 dugongs were estimated to remain in 1997, and recent surveys suggest only three individuals currently inhabit Okinawa. The destruction of the seagrass habitat in Henoko Bay due to airbase construction directly threatens this population, making compliance with environmental laws and international conservation commitments vital for the species' survival. Mozambique, Vietnam and other countries : Poaching persists in some countries at an unsustainable frequency, such as Mozambique or Vietnam. References : CONSERVATION OF NATURE.doc PNA_Dugong-Mayotte_2012-2016.pdf (biodiversite.gouv.fr) Dugong dugon (Dugong) (iucnredlist.org) Dugong dugon Eastern Africa subpopulation (Dugong) (iucnredlist.org) Dugong dugon Nansei subpopulation (Dugong) (iucnredlist.org) Dugong Dugong dugon Nansei subpopulation has most recently been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2019. Dugong dugon Nansei subpopulation is listed as Critically Endangered under criteria C1; D. MOU Text | Dugong Legal Appeal Challenges U.S. Military Base Construction in Japan, Threat to Rare Okinawa Dugongs | Turtle Island Restoration Network Fighting to Protect the Dugongs of Japan's Henoko Bay | Saving Earth | Encyclopedia Britannica Okinawa Dugong v. Gates_Case Summary.docx (Protecting the Endangered Dugong From a Proposed Military Airbase - Earthjustice Okinawa Dugong v. Gates, 543 F. Supp. 2d 1082 | Casetext Search + Citator Protecting the Dugong: Regulating U.S. Military Bases in Japan | Columbia | Journal of International Affairs U.S. COURT RULES IN THE “OKINAWA DUGONG” CASE Implications for U.S. Military Bases Overseas Department of Defense Must Comply with National Historic Preservation Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 Section 3: Provisions relating to animals of non-domestic species kept in captivity for entertainment purposes (Articles L413-9 to L413-14) - Légifrance Article : "The Legal and Conservation Battle for the Okinawa Dugong"

Team ZAN : Who are we ? チーム・ザン : 私たちは誰ですか ？ English version / 英語版 : "Association for the Watching Over the Dugongs at the Northern Limit" was established by wildlife researchers and citizens with the aim of protecting the dugongs, the marine mammals that survive in Okinawa. Dugongs, which were once familiar to the people of Okinawa, were once thought to have become extinct due to overfishing for food in the past and the deterioration of the habitat due to development. However, in January 1998, a dugong was confirmed off the coast of Henoko, Nago City, which ironically had become a candidate site for the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, and its survival was made public by photographing it from a helicopter in the media. After that, steady conservation activities were started in Okinawa, but the conservation activities were not communicated to the "mainland" media and nature conservation groups, and the existence of the Okinawan dugong was hardly known in the "mainland" at that time. As an organization that protects dugongs that inhabit the northern limits of the world, we have bases of operations in both the mainland and Okinawa, and aim to carry out effective activities to protect dugongs and their habitats while coordinating both. Since its establishment, it has mainly held symposiums and seminars, made recommendations to the government, disseminated information through newsletters, participated in events, signed petitions, participated in international conferences, protested in the area, interacted with local communities, and conducted historical and cultural research on dugongs. Since November 2006, in order to learn more about the ecology of dugongs, we have been regularly investigating the food marks left by dugongs after eating seaweed with the advice and guidance of researchers. In the future, based on the results of this survey and the basic scientific data from existing surveys, we will propose concrete measures to ensure the survival and recovery of the dugong population in Okinawa, as well as environmental conditions that should be secured and improved, and take action to realize an environment in which dugongs can live. Japanese version / 日本語版 : 「北限のジュゴンを見守る会」は、沖縄に生き残っている海棲哺乳類ジュゴンの保護を目的として野生生物に関わる研究者と市民により設立されました。 　かつて沖縄の人々になじみの深い生きものだったジュゴンは、過去の食用目的の乱獲と開発による生息環境の悪化で一度は絶滅したと考えられていました。しかし、1998年1月、皮肉にも米軍海兵隊普天間飛行場の移設先の候補地となっていた名護市辺野古沖で、マスコミのヘリコプターからの撮影によってジュゴンが確認され、その生存が公にされたのです。 　その後、沖縄では地道な保護活動がはじめられましたが、その保護活動が「本土」のメディアや自然保護団体に伝えられることはなく、沖縄のジュゴンの存在も当時「本土」ではほとんど知られていませんでした。 　私たちは、世界の北限に生息するジュゴンを保護する団体として「本土」と沖縄の両方に活動拠点を置き、その双方を連携させながら、ジュゴンとその生息地を守るための実効性のある活動を目指しています。 　 　設立以来、主にシンポジウム・セミナーの開催、政府への提言活動、会報等による情報発信、イベントへの参加、署名活動、国際会議への参加、現地における抗議行動、地元との交流、ジュゴンに関する歴史的文化的な調査などを行ってきました。 　2006年11月からは、ジュゴンの生態を詳しく知るため、研究者の助言・指導を受けながら、ジュゴンが海草を食べた後に残す食跡を定期的に調査しています。今後、この結果および既存の調査による科学的基礎データをもとに、沖縄のジュゴン個体群を存続・回復させるための具体的な方策や、確保・改善すべき環境の条件を提示し、ジュゴンが生きていける環境の実現をめざして行動していきます。 ジュゴンからみえる野生生物保護の道筋

Scientific articles ABConservation The relationship between the zoo community and ABConservation for an integrated conservation programme in Palawan, Philippines Read the article Sumatra Ecoproject Sunda Slow Loris Online Trade In Facebook, Tells Us Why It’s Unstoppable and Probably Damaging Local Genetic Read the article Team ZAN The Okinawa Dugong Read the article

Wombat Wombatidae I.U.C.N. : L.C. : Low Concern N.T. : Not Threatened VU : Vulnerable EN : Endangered CR : Critically Endangered EW : Extinct in the Wild EX : Extinct DD : Data Deficient C.I.T.E.S. : Appendix I : strictly forbidden trade (or allowed by special agreements) Appendix II : restricted trade Appendix III : allowed trade not indexed : no C.I.T.E.S. status Common Wombat Vombatus ursinus U.I.C.N. : LC - Least Concerned C.I.T.E.S. : Not indexed Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii U.I.C.N. : CR - Critically Endangered C.I.T.E.S. : Appendix I (01/07/1975) EU Wildlife Trade Regulations : Class A (20/05/2023) Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat Lasiorhinus latifrons U.I.C.N. : NT - Near Threatened C.I.T.E.S. : Not indexed Localization Australia Threats Annual and perennial non-timber crops Livestock farming and ranching Invasive, non-native and alien species Diseases (known and unknown) Droughts Population Common wombat (Vombatus ursinus ) : stable Northern hairy-nosed wombat (Lasiorhinus krefftii ) : stable Southern hairy-nosed wombat (Lasiorhinus latifrons ) : decreasing Trade Australia : Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 Current as at 1 September 2024 Ownership of Protected Wildlife: Protected animals and plants are generally owned by the State. Ownership can transfer to individuals through licenses, permits, or conservation plans. Progeny of protected animals or plants often belong to the parent owner. Animals or plants that become protected due to new regulations remain the owner’s property unless specified otherwise. Liability and Rights: The State is not liable for incidents involving protected species. Existing property rights before wildlife becomes protected are preserved. Restrictions on Activities: Taking, keeping, or using protected animals without authorization can result in significant penalties, including fines and imprisonment. Certain exemptions apply, such as unintentional harm or cultural practices by Indigenous peoples. Special Restrictions: Dugongs and Marine Turtles: Selling or distributing these animals or their derivatives in commercial food premises is prohibited. Flying Foxes: Destroying, disturbing, or relocating their roosts is restricted unless specifically authorized. The laws aim to balance conservation efforts with individual ownership rights and impose severe penalties for unauthorized activities to protect biodiversity and promote responsible wildlife management. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Australia has strict regulations for importing and exporting household pets, focusing on native and exotic species. Native Pets: The export of live native animals is highly regulated to protect Australian wildlife. Certain native pets, like cockatoos and budgerigars, can be taken abroad under strict conditions, such as non-commercial purposes and limited numbers. Owners must prove residency, ownership, and intention to permanently relocate overseas. Exotic Pets: Defined as non-native species, exotic pets are subject to import restrictions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Biosecurity Act 2015. Only species on the "Live Import List" are permitted. Illegally imported animals are prohibited, and offenders may face fines or imprisonment. Wildlife Trade Permits: Permits are needed for native and exotic pet trade, especially for species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Australia’s regulations aim to protect its environment, prevent disease, and ensure humane treatment of animals. United States : Rules through the United States : Alabama: Restrictions on exotic animals like giant snails, bobcats, and venomous reptiles unless permitted before 2021. No release of non-native animals without a license. Alaska: Broad restrictions on wildlife, including wolf hybrids and chimpanzees. Some pets, like ferrets, are legal without a permit. Arizona: Extensive restrictions require permits for many species like primates, foxes, and Gila monsters. Permits are issued for specific purposes like education. Arkansas: Large carnivores and primates are restricted unless permitted before set years. Some venomous reptiles are allowed with permits, and up to six captive-bred animals like raccoons can be owned without a permit. California: Prohibits most wild animals, including bears and primates, but allows hybrids like Savannah cats. Colorado: Most exotic animals like primates and raccoons are banned, but hedgehogs and sugar gliders are allowed without permits. Connecticut: Prohibits dangerous animals like bears and wolves. Limited ownership of primates allowed under specific conditions. Delaware: Requires permits for exotic animals; no comprehensive list of banned animals is provided. District of Columbia: Only common domestic pets like cats, dogs, and some birds are allowed. Exotic species are banned. Florida: Animals categorized into Classes I-III, with varying permit requirements. Non-dangerous animals like ferrets are exempt. Georgia: Strict permitting for wild animals like kangaroos and venomous snakes, while ferrets and sugar gliders are allowed under specific conditions. Hawaii: Most exotic animals, including hedgehogs and ferrets, are banned. A limited number of domesticated animals are permitted. Idaho: Prohibits animals harmful to agriculture, like wild boars and large cats. Llamas and guinea pigs are allowed without permits. Illinois: Restricts dangerous animals like large cats and wolves to organizations. Existing primates are allowed if registered. Indiana: Allows exotic animal ownership with permits for different classes, from squirrels to large predators. Iowa: Restricts dangerous wild animals unless permitted before 2007. Hybrids of domestic species are allowed. Kansas: Limits ownership of regulated animals like large cats, bears, and venomous snakes to approved facilities. Kentucky: Bans inherently dangerous animals like primates and bears. Some permits available for non-dangerous species. Louisiana: Requires permits for large snakes and prohibits endangered or dangerous species like bears and wolves. Maine: Broad restrictions on exotic pets like giraffes and kangaroos. Some exotic animals like coati are permitted. Maryland: Prohibits dangerous animals like primates and large cats unless registered before 2006. Massachusetts: Strict restrictions on endangered species and venomous reptiles. Ferrets allowed under specific conditions. Michigan: Restricts ownership of non-native species like large cats. Permits are available for captive-bred wildlife. Minnesota: Prohibits regulated animals like large cats unless registered before 2005. Mississippi: Requires liability insurance for permits to own inherently dangerous animals like elephants and primates. Missouri: Requires registration of dangerous reptiles and mammals with law enforcement. Montana: Requires annual permits for wild animals like large cats and bears. Many small exotics are legal without permits. Nebraska: Captive wildlife permits needed for most wild animals, excluding certain species like skunks and bears. Nevada: Relatively lenient, banning certain species like alligators but allowing primates and large cats. New Hampshire: Controlled species like armadillos and cougars require permits. New Jersey: Permits required for many species, including ferrets and primates. Some small animals are exempt. New Mexico: Regulates zoonotic disease carriers like skunks and raccoons; local laws may impose additional restrictions. New York: Prohibits most wild animals and hybrids; fines imposed for violations. North Carolina: Exotic pet laws vary by county or city; no statewide restrictions. North Dakota: Dangerous or hazardous animals like zebras and primates require licenses. Ohio: Strict laws after a 2011 incident, banning dangerous wild animals like tigers and bears without permits. Oklahoma: Permits required for venomous reptiles, while many exotic animals are exempt from regulation. Oregon: Prohibits wild cat species and large predators; permits available for service monkeys. Pennsylvania: Exotic wildlife permits required for animals like lions, wolves, and venomous snakes. Rhode Island: Only specific organizations can own wild carnivores like lions and tigers. South Carolina: Restricts large cats and apes unless registered by 2018. South Dakota: Permits required for most exotic animals, with specific rules for raccoon dogs. Tennessee: Classifies animals by risk level, requiring permits for certain classes. Texas: Requires a certificate of registration for dangerous wild animals like wild cats and primates. Utah: Controlled, noncontrolled, and prohibited animals require different levels of permitting. Vermont: Requires permits for exotic animals not on the unrestricted list. Virginia: Exotic animals like wild cats and crocodiles require permits. Washington: Prohibits dangerous animals like bears and venomous snakes. West Virginia: Requires permits with strict conditions for keeping wild animals. Wisconsin: Requires licenses for wild animals, but some, like opossums and ground squirrels, are exempt. Wyoming: Requires permits for most wildlife unless specifically exempted. Highlights: Stringent Restrictions: Hawaii, California, and New York are among the strictest states. Lenient Laws: Indiana and Nevada allow more exotic animals with fewer restrictions. Common Prohibitions: Dangerous animals like large cats, bears, primates, and venomous reptiles are frequently restricted. Permits: Most states offer permits for special cases like education or scientific purposes. References : Species+ Vombatus ursinus (Common Wombat) Lasiorhinus krefftii (Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat) Lasiorhinus latifrons (Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat) Publications Office Nature Conservation Act 1992 Mangy marsupials: wombats are catching a deadly disease, and we urgently need a plan to help them Approved lists under the EPBC Act and nominating something for listing - DCCEEW Household pets - DCCEEW Laws on Exotic Animals for Each State