4.6 Article

Exploited for pets: the harvest and trade of amphibians and reptiles from Indonesian New Guinea

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 2899-2911

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-012-0345-8

关键词

Biodiversity; CITES; Exotic pets; Herpetofauna; Illegal wildlife trade; Monitor; Python

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over-exploitation of wildlife is a significant threat to global biodiversity, but addressing the sustainability of harvests can be difficult when trade is conducted illegally. The wildlife trade is driven chiefly by consumer demand, largely in developed nations (but increasingly in Asia), and more species are traded to meet international demand for pets than for any other purpose. We surveyed traders of amphibians and reptiles in the Indonesian provinces of Maluku, West Papua and Papua between September 2010 and April 2011. We recorded 5,370 individuals representing 52 species collected solely for the pet trade. At least 44 % were either fully protected or had not been allocated a harvest quota, making their harvest and trade illegal. Approximately half were listed within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Trade operates via a complex chain, with hunters receiving little income compared to middlemen and exporters. Examination of Indonesian harvest quotas for amphibians and reptiles suggests limited knowledge of species distributions, with quotas often set for species in provinces where they do not occur. Illegal trade is due, partly, to an inadequate understanding of the species being traded and is facilitated by poor monitoring and enforcement at key trade hubs. As a first step to combatting illegal trade, and to better understand the effects of harvest on wild populations, we recommend the need for increased monitoring and enforcement, improving the knowledge base of species traded and educating consumers about the effects their demand for pets has on these species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据