Patterns of illegal and legal tiger parts entering the United States over a decade (2003–2012)

Abstract

Poaching and illegal trade are primary threats to tigers (Panthera tigris). Trade in tiger parts has been well documented in Asia. However, little is known about tiger parts entering the United States (US). We analyzed seizures of tiger parts trafficked through US ports of entry from 2003 to 2012 along with shipments that had been issued legal Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species import permits. We found 292 seizure incidents and 283 permitted imports over that 10-year period. The amount of tiger parts trafficked into the US illegally was larger than what has been previously reported. Most tiger parts entered the US legally and illegally for personal purposes; 81.8% of seized items were medicinal products. San Francisco, Dallas, and Atlanta were entry hotspots for illegal tiger imports which mainly entered the United States from China and Vietnam. Of the 65.8% of seized parts with a known origin, 99.5% originated from wild tigers. Since country of origin and source of many legally and illegally traded tiger parts was unknown, we recommend the use of forensic DNA analysis to address these knowledge gaps to focus conservation and enforcement efforts. Research should continue in the United States to adequately capture the global supply, demand, and trade of tiger parts.

Exaggeration of the US role in the international tiger trade: Response to Khanwilkar et al. (2022)

“…The results published by Khanwilkar et al (2022) assumed the presence of tiger material based on USFWS LEMIS trade records, but the physical examination of hundreds of similar TCMs by the USFWS National Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (Ashland, Oregon) revealed no evidence of tiger bone (Wetton et al, 2004). Although it is plausible that material sampled more recently may have tested positive, Khanwilkar et al (2022) do not offer USFWS forensic testing results to this effect, and thus it is to be expected that most of these items either continue to be deceptively labeled as containing tiger or include such low trace amounts that they would test negative for the presence of tiger, if sampled. In either scenario, despite the presence of tiger trade violations in the USFWS LEMIS data for TCM products, this is not scientific evidence of tiger trade.…”

“…In either scenario, despite the presence of tiger trade violations in the USFWS LEMIS data for TCM products, this is not scientific evidence of tiger trade. This scientific uncertainty should have been explicitly recognized and caveated by Khanwilkar et al (2022) as a limitation of the data used in their study.…”

“…As a result of these data challenges and limitations, the USFWS LEMIS database is not adequately reliable to use for scientific analysis, unless verification of recorded data can be done. As such, the trade analyses and conclusions presented by Khanwilkar et al (2022) should be interpreted as an unreliable, and most likely, serious mischaracterization that overstates actual tiger import levels in the United States. USFWS LEMIS data misconceptions and errors are common among wildlife trade studies that have not received peerreview from LEMIS data experts (Challender et al, 2022); Khanwilkar et al (2022) appears to fall into this category.…”

“…This letter is a response to the recently published paper by Khanwilkar, Sosnowski, and Guynup (2022) that described a decade of importation of tiger parts and products into the United States. This study included two fundamental errors: the misinterpretation of wildlife trade violations and the handling of certain wildlife trade data points as objective scientific values, when they are not.…”

“…Furthermore, test results from fragments of "tiger" bone seized from TCM shops in the United Kingdom, the Far East, and the United States showed that they were instead bones from cattle and pigs (Wetton et al, 2004). The results published by Khanwilkar et al (2022) assumed the presence of tiger material based on USFWS LEMIS trade records, but the physical examination of hundreds of similar TCMs by the USFWS National Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (Ashland, Oregon) revealed no evidence of tiger bone (Wetton et al, 2004). Although it is plausible that material sampled more recently may have tested positive, Khanwilkar et al (2022) do not offer USFWS forensic testing results to this effect, and thus it is to be expected that most of these items either continue to be deceptively labeled as containing tiger or include such low trace amounts that they would test negative for the presence of tiger, if sampled.…”