>>Roughly one in four mammals and birds, one in eight reptiles and one in ten amphibians aren’t free to walk, fly or slither, according to findings in a study published last week in Science. Per the report, 5,579 of the 31,500 known terrestrial vertebrate species are caught in the global wildlife trade. This figure is 40 to 60 percent higher than previous estimates.

“We are revealing the sheer magnitude of what this multibillion-dollar industry represents,” study co-lead author Brian Scheffers of University of Florida tells Dina Fine Maron at National Geographic.<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-science/new-report-finds-one-five-terrestrial-vertebrate-species-are-traded-globally-180973291/

PermeateFree said:

>>Roughly one in four mammals and birds, one in eight reptiles and one in ten amphibians aren’t free to walk, fly or slither, according to findings in a study published last week in Science. Per the report, 5,579 of the 31,500 known terrestrial vertebrate species are caught in the global wildlife trade. This figure is 40 to 60 percent higher than previous estimates.

“We are revealing the sheer magnitude of what this multibillion-dollar industry represents,” study co-lead author Brian Scheffers of University of Florida tells Dina Fine Maron at National Geographic.<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-science/new-report-finds-one-five-terrestrial-vertebrate-species-are-traded-globally-180973291/

> Per the report, 5,579 of the 31,500 known terrestrial vertebrate species are caught in the global trade.

We can talk about the importance of pet biodiversity all we like, and about how only the captured ones get excellent veterinary care. We can talk about transport into wildlife refuges, and removal from places of danger such as forest fires.

But still, a lot of those ought to be illegal.

What are the equivalent figures for flowering plants?

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Roughly one in four mammals and birds, one in eight reptiles and one in ten amphibians aren’t free to walk, fly or slither, according to findings in a study published last week in Science. Per the report, 5,579 of the 31,500 known terrestrial vertebrate species are caught in the global wildlife trade. This figure is 40 to 60 percent higher than previous estimates.

“We are revealing the sheer magnitude of what this multibillion-dollar industry represents,” study co-lead author Brian Scheffers of University of Florida tells Dina Fine Maron at National Geographic.<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-science/new-report-finds-one-five-terrestrial-vertebrate-species-are-traded-globally-180973291/

> Per the report, 5,579 of the 31,500 known terrestrial vertebrate species are caught in the global trade.

We can talk about the importance of pet biodiversity all we like, and about how only the captured ones get excellent veterinary care. We can talk about transport into wildlife refuges, and removal from places of danger such as forest fires.

But still, a lot of those ought to be illegal.

What are the equivalent figures for flowering plants?

These figures could extend well beyond whatever ballbark could be suggested.

I’ve read the research article, and still have no idea:

• Where they got their data.
• What gaps there are in the data sources, eg. Is the information dominated by western customs sources, by inspectors in SE Asia, by voluntary accounting by menageries, or pet shops.
• How much of the source data is antique, eg. More than 50 years old. Need a plot on the time axis.

Research articles have to say where they got their data.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve read the research article, and still have no idea:

• Where they got their data.
• What gaps there are in the data sources, eg. Is the information dominated by western customs sources, by inspectors in SE Asia, by voluntary accounting by menageries, or pet shops.
• How much of the source data is antique, eg. More than 50 years old. Need a plot on the time axis.

Research articles have to say where they got their data.

Note the value of the trade in species quoted in the paper is not just for terrestrial vertibrates, it also includes plants.

Looks like i have to dig deeper.

“we searched the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) databases to identify traded terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, mammals, amphibians, and squamate reptiles).”

Now reading https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf

it seems that the CITES database is well aware of the difficulty of the task. Where an animal is traded from one country to another, both import and export information is obtained and compared. Animal birth conditions are recorded eg. From the wild or from a registered breeder. Permits issued for trade are recorded. As are illegal seizures. And use is separated between live animals and animal products.

Limitations are inevitable – almost all examples are between one country amd another, not within a country. Some countries are very much sloppier in their reporting procedures than others. Since 1998 (and only since then) recorded species have been checked to ensure that authorities aren’t getting the species name wrong.

In other words, the database is as complete as possible, but misses a lot. That suggests that that 1 in five could be a gross underestimate. We can’t know for sure.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve read the research article, and still have no idea:

• Where they got their data.
• What gaps there are in the data sources, eg. Is the information dominated by western customs sources, by inspectors in SE Asia, by voluntary accounting by menageries, or pet shops.
• How much of the source data is antique, eg. More than 50 years old. Need a plot on the time axis.

Research articles have to say where they got their data.

Note the value of the trade in species quoted in the paper is not just for terrestrial vertibrates, it also includes plants.

Looks like i have to dig deeper.

“we searched the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) databases to identify traded terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, mammals, amphibians, and squamate reptiles).”

Now reading https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf

it seems that the CITES database is well aware of the difficulty of the task. Where an animal is traded from one country to another, both import and export information is obtained and compared. Animal birth conditions are recorded eg. From the wild or from a registered breeder. Permits issued for trade are recorded. As are illegal seizures. And use is separated between live animals and animal products.

Limitations are inevitable – almost all examples are between one country amd another, not within a country. Some countries are very much sloppier in their reporting procedures than others. Since 1998 (and only since then) recorded species have been checked to ensure that authorities aren’t getting the species name wrong.

In other words, the database is as complete as possible, but misses a lot. That suggests that that 1 in five could be a gross underestimate. We can’t know for sure.

When you are dealing with wild animals and plants on a global scale the figures are at best only a guesstimate and to complain about getting accurate figures is totally pointless and serves little purpose. However what can be gleamed from information available, is the trade is very large and is endangering species, some likely to extinction.

There are a number of plants listed by CITES, although those with a commercial interest would be the main ones exploited. Orchids in particular are commonly sort by people prepared to travel to remote regions and take great risks to obtain some species.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve read the research article, and still have no idea:

• Where they got their data.
• What gaps there are in the data sources, eg. Is the information dominated by western customs sources, by inspectors in SE Asia, by voluntary accounting by menageries, or pet shops.
• How much of the source data is antique, eg. More than 50 years old. Need a plot on the time axis.

Research articles have to say where they got their data.

Note the value of the trade in species quoted in the paper is not just for terrestrial vertibrates, it also includes plants.

Looks like i have to dig deeper.

“we searched the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) databases to identify traded terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, mammals, amphibians, and squamate reptiles).”

Now reading https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf

it seems that the CITES database is well aware of the difficulty of the task. Where an animal is traded from one country to another, both import and export information is obtained and compared. Animal birth conditions are recorded eg. From the wild or from a registered breeder. Permits issued for trade are recorded. As are illegal seizures. And use is separated between live animals and animal products.

Limitations are inevitable – almost all examples are between one country amd another, not within a country. Some countries are very much sloppier in their reporting procedures than others. Since 1998 (and only since then) recorded species have been checked to ensure that authorities aren’t getting the species name wrong.

In other words, the database is as complete as possible, but misses a lot. That suggests that that 1 in five could be a gross underestimate. We can’t know for sure.

When you are dealing with wild animals and plants on a global scale the figures are at best only a guesstimate and to complain about getting accurate figures is totally pointless and serves little purpose. However what can be gleamed from information available, is the trade is very large and is endangering species, some likely to extinction.

There are a number of plants listed by CITES, although those with a commercial interest would be the main ones exploited. Orchids in particular are commonly sort by people prepared to travel to remote regions and take great risks to obtain some species.

Sometime i must see how many of those are permit transfers. Transfers to and from captive breeding programs. Transfers to zoos. Transfer for scientific research. Etc.

I suspect that most of the billions of dollars in the industry is for flowering plants. Rather than terrestrial vertebrates.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Note the value of the trade in species quoted in the paper is not just for terrestrial vertibrates, it also includes plants.

Looks like i have to dig deeper.

“we searched the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) databases to identify traded terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, mammals, amphibians, and squamate reptiles).”

Now reading https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf

it seems that the CITES database is well aware of the difficulty of the task. Where an animal is traded from one country to another, both import and export information is obtained and compared. Animal birth conditions are recorded eg. From the wild or from a registered breeder. Permits issued for trade are recorded. As are illegal seizures. And use is separated between live animals and animal products.

Limitations are inevitable – almost all examples are between one country amd another, not within a country. Some countries are very much sloppier in their reporting procedures than others. Since 1998 (and only since then) recorded species have been checked to ensure that authorities aren’t getting the species name wrong.

In other words, the database is as complete as possible, but misses a lot. That suggests that that 1 in five could be a gross underestimate. We can’t know for sure.

When you are dealing with wild animals and plants on a global scale the figures are at best only a guesstimate and to complain about getting accurate figures is totally pointless and serves little purpose. However what can be gleamed from information available, is the trade is very large and is endangering species, some likely to extinction.

There are a number of plants listed by CITES, although those with a commercial interest would be the main ones exploited. Orchids in particular are commonly sort by people prepared to travel to remote regions and take great risks to obtain some species.

Sometime i must see how many of those are permit transfers. Transfers to and from captive breeding programs. Transfers to zoos. Transfer for scientific research. Etc.

I suspect that most of the billions of dollars in the industry is for flowering plants. Rather than terrestrial vertebrates.

Many exotic species are just stolen from their natural habitat aren’t they

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Note the value of the trade in species quoted in the paper is not just for terrestrial vertibrates, it also includes plants.

Looks like i have to dig deeper.

“we searched the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) databases to identify traded terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, mammals, amphibians, and squamate reptiles).”

Now reading https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf

it seems that the CITES database is well aware of the difficulty of the task. Where an animal is traded from one country to another, both import and export information is obtained and compared. Animal birth conditions are recorded eg. From the wild or from a registered breeder. Permits issued for trade are recorded. As are illegal seizures. And use is separated between live animals and animal products.

Limitations are inevitable – almost all examples are between one country amd another, not within a country. Some countries are very much sloppier in their reporting procedures than others. Since 1998 (and only since then) recorded species have been checked to ensure that authorities aren’t getting the species name wrong.

In other words, the database is as complete as possible, but misses a lot. That suggests that that 1 in five could be a gross underestimate. We can’t know for sure.

When you are dealing with wild animals and plants on a global scale the figures are at best only a guesstimate and to complain about getting accurate figures is totally pointless and serves little purpose. However what can be gleamed from information available, is the trade is very large and is endangering species, some likely to extinction.

There are a number of plants listed by CITES, although those with a commercial interest would be the main ones exploited. Orchids in particular are commonly sort by people prepared to travel to remote regions and take great risks to obtain some species.

Sometime i must see how many of those are permit transfers. Transfers to and from captive breeding programs. Transfers to zoos. Transfer for scientific research. Etc.

I suspect that most of the billions of dollars in the industry is for flowering plants. Rather than terrestrial vertebrates.

Shakes head, but understands the pointlessness of discussing world problems with some people.

I imagine if you can make money someone will sell the animal and it will get worse as rarity will increase value, the fact it should be left alone to live its life is irrelevant

Cymek said:

I imagine if you can make money someone will sell the animal and it will get worse as rarity will increase value, the fact it should be left alone to live its life is irrelevant

In some cultures, they boast their wealth by serving at dinner parties the rarest and most expensive wildlife.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I imagine if you can make money someone will sell the animal and it will get worse as rarity will increase value, the fact it should be left alone to live its life is irrelevant

In some cultures, they boast their wealth by serving at dinner parties the rarest and most expensive wildlife.

That sort of thing yes.
One of the best things we could do for the planet, is to stop eating meat, using animals as a resource to be used until extinction most of the time and generally respecting them.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I imagine if you can make money someone will sell the animal and it will get worse as rarity will increase value, the fact it should be left alone to live its life is irrelevant

In some cultures, they boast their wealth by serving at dinner parties the rarest and most expensive wildlife.

That sort of thing yes.
One of the best things we could do for the planet, is to stop eating meat, using animals as a resource to be used until extinction most of the time and generally respecting them.

The best thing that could be done is to drastically reduce our population, so these demands from unscrupulous people can be catered for in much smaller numbers and so not deplete wildlife populations.