Open image gallery
The species is widespread and fairly common, with no tangible threats to habitat within its range. Over-exploitation is a concern for this species, but there is as yet no quantifiable data to determine the impact on the population. The species is therefore listed as Least Concern.
Negligible
No information on population size or trends is currently available, but the species is inferred to be stable given that it has a large distribution that there is a lack of impact from human activities.
Because of its popularity as a pet (Mouton 1988) over-exploitation by the pet trade is a threat; recent CITES statistics as well as local arrests of foreign nationals with this species in their possession corroborate this. For example, in November 2017, a foreign national was caught smuggling 48 specimens of this species (TimesLive, November 2017) and this is not an isolated case. Given that the species is group-living, it is conceivable that targeted collecting could eliminate entire colonies. Even if individuals were left in a colony, this species' potential to recover is low, due to low fecundity (Flemming and Mouton 2002). The recorded exports of F1 individuals (UNEP-WCMC 2017) indicates that gravid females are being collected from the wild. They also have a very patchy distribution, suggesting that they would be slow to disperse and therefore recolonization potential into depleted colonies would be low.
Termitophagy is central to the biology of Ourborus cataphractus, thus changes in rainfall patterns and any other factors influencing the abundance and distribution of termites will also indirectly impact the lizard (Shuttleworth 2006).
This species is listed in CITES Appendix II, and is found in the pet trade. There are a number of exports from South Africa of wild caught individuals, but the CITES statistics are incomplete so the level of trade is difficult to assess (UNEP-WCMC 2017). Exports are recorded up until 2016, with some exports from non-range states (e.g. France, Hong Kong, Germany) and these are indicated as captive bred or F1. The latter would have to have originated in South Africa, yet CITES statistics do not show wild caught exports from South Africa to these non-range states suggesting that the F1 and possibly captive bred are of illegal origin. Furthermore, there have been recent arrests in the Western Cape Province of foreign nationals in possession of dozens of individuals and no corresponding provincial collection or CITES permits. Taken together, this suggests that there is targeted harvest from the wild of this species that is not accompanied by national permits and/or international permits.
This species is listed in CITES Appendix II; it occurs in some protected areas. It is possible that illegal trade is a significant threat to this species, particularly targeted collection locally. The low fecundity of the species coupled with removal of large numbers in the group could result in local extirpations of colonies. Given the presumed lack of propensity to disperse, it is unlikely that vacant or over-harvested colonies would recover through dispersal from other colonies. The level of legal and illegal trade and the impacts on this species needs to be quantified urgently. Strong law enforcement and subsequent prosecution relating to illegal harvesting should be put into effect. CITES permit applications should be heavily scrutinized and non-range states should not allow export of F1 individuals without accompanying CITES export permits from South Africa. Captive bred exports should be required to show proof of pedigree prior to granting CITES export permits. This species is a candidate for non-detriment findings by the South African Scientific Authority.