Where did all the pangolins go? International CITES trade in pangolin species

Heinrich, Sarah; Wittmann, Talia A.; Prowse, Thomas A. A.; Ross, Joshua V.; Delean, Steven; Shepherd, Chris R.; Cassey, Phillip

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2016.09.007

Cited by 130 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Harrington et al 2014;UNEP-WCMC 2014;Heinrich et al 2016). These misgivings, and the explicit acknowledgement that data assigned to Code 'I' have been and remain a mixture (of unknown proportions) of both illegal seizure and legal re(export) incidents, seem to strengthen the conclusions and recommendations we offered in D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016) and we repeat our gratitude to Lopes et al (2017), for affording us the opportunity to point this out.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…The publication of D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016) and subsequent documents thereafter (CITES Notification 2017/006; Heinrich et al 2016;UNEP-WCMC 2017) have also contributed, we think usefully, to the accumulating evidence of opportunities to improve the already unquestionably valuable CITES data and to reduce confusion amongst Parties and researchers regarding reporting requirements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…41 and16.42 in 2013 (CITES 2013)]. Indeed, according to Heinrich et al, (2016) [also published subsequent to D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016)] the USA is one of the few countries reporting such trafficking incidents, and we understand that it does this by reporting the seizures under source code 'I' in the source column [their study reports 98% of pangolin records using source code 'I' made between 1975 and 2014 proved to be seizures rather than re(exports)].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, as exemplified by Heinrich et al, (2016) in the case of pangolins, we argue that to establish this number it is necessary to compare these records with information in other databases that contain data regarding illegal wildlife seizures [e.g. the Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) database maintained in USA].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An update on CITES live confiscations, in response to Lopes et al. (2017)

D’Cruze¹,

Macdonald²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are pleased that Lopes et al. (2017), approached our article with high expectations and thank them for their fulsome endorsement of the importance of the topic. We are also grateful that their criticism of our use of CITES source code 'I' provides us with an opportunity to clarify how things have changed since we wrote our article (D'Cruze and Macdonald 2016). Indeed, insofar as a superficial reader might have construed Lopes et al.'s (2017) commentary as a criticism of our paper, our response might be unexpected in that we agree with much of what they write. However, we differ from them in the conclusion that subsequent developments have weakened the essence of our main conclusion; on the contrary, we think they strengthen it. Our main conclusion was, and remains, that CITES trade database records are inconsistent and incomplete, with data on the disposal of confiscated live animals lacking, and that these deficiencies impede the proper allocation of available resources and prevent the effective monitoring and evaluation of management outcomes. More generally, by drawing attention to uncertainties in the fate of large numbers of confiscated wild animals, threatened or otherwise, we believe our paper has fulfilled an important role. Lopes et al. (2017), correctly, and helpfully, draw attention to the fact that the CITES source code 'I' should represent legal (re)exports of seized wild animals and their derivatives using a CITES permit, rather than seizures relating to illegal trade activity,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An update on CITES live confiscations, in response to Lopes et al. (2017)

D’Cruze¹,

Macdonald²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The US is one of the largest markets for leather products of both pangolins (Heinrich et al, 2016) and arapaimas (Sinovas et al, 2017). Yet this is likely to be a niche market, and the trade dynamics remain unquantified in the scientific literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Of cowboys, fish, and pangolins: US trade in exotic leather

Heinrich

Ross

Cassey

2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illegal wildlife trade is a lucrative business, which is driving many species towards extinction. Pangolins (Manis spp.) and arapaimas (Arapaima spp.) are two CITES listed genera coveted in the leather fashion industry for their unique skin pattern.The US has contributed to the decline of pangolin species and was historically a large market for pangolin leather products. While the US trade in pangolin products has declined since 2000, we suspect that pangolin leather may now be substituted by arapaima products. Arapaima leather trade has increased significantly since the year 2011. We found a strong positive correlation between the US states trading in both arapaima and pangolin leather products. The US states that were most involved in this trade had a lower population density and were comparatively wealthier than others. Leather items of both arapaima and pangolin were found for sale on eBay, with 75% of incidents in breach of eBay policy, and potentially illegal. Pangolin leather products were also falsely advertised as arapaima products.We conclude that arapaima leather is increasingly used to satisfy the persisting demand for exotic leather, and further research is urgently needed to determine the effect of the trade on wild arapaima populations.

show abstract

Sunda pangolins show inconsistent responses to disturbances across multiple scales

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pangolins are the most trafficked animals worldwide and are presumed to be restricted to pristine habitats due to poaching intensity in more accessible degraded areas or intrinsic habitat preferences. We tested the hypothesis that pangolins' could persist in degraded areas and near humans if poaching is controlled. We used occurrence records from new and published camera trapping studies from across Southeast Asia to conduct a multiscale analysis of habitat associations for the Critically Endangered Sunda pangolin, encompassing poached and non-poached areas. Our results were highly influenced by Singapore, where pangolins are common in urban settings and there is minimal poaching. Excluding Singapore, there were no significant landscape-level habitat associations, reflecting pangolins are habitat generalists. At local scales (including and excluding Singapore), occupancy was negatively correlated with active deforestation but not previously degraded forests. We conclude that with strong antipoaching enforcement, pangolins are unexpectedly adaptable, with Singapore exemplifying the potential for species recovery.

show abstract

Where did all the pangolins go? International CITES trade in pangolin species

Cited by 130 publications

References 32 publications

An update on CITES live confiscations, in response to Lopes et al. (2017)

An update on CITES live confiscations, in response to Lopes et al. (2017)

Of cowboys, fish, and pangolins: US trade in exotic leather

Sunda pangolins show inconsistent responses to disturbances across multiple scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About