From Which Country Does The United States Import The Most Live Animals?

• Journal Listing
• Nature Public Health Emergency Drove
• PMC5357285

Ecohealth. 2017; 14(ane): 29–39.

Summarizing Usa Wild animals Trade with an Eye Toward Assessing the Take a chance of Infectious disease Introduction

K. M. Smith,^ane C. Zambrana-Torrelio,^ane A. White,¹ M. Asmussen,^{one, iv} C. Machalaba,^ane Due south. Kennedy,^two Thousand. Lopez,ⁱⁱⁱ T. M. Wolf,ⁱⁱⁱ P. Daszak,¹ D. A. Travis,³ and W. B. Karesh ⁱ

K. M. Smith

¹EcoHealth Alliance, 460 Westward 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 U.s.

C. Zambrana-Torrelio

¹EcoHealth Brotherhood, 460 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 USA

A. White

¹EcoHealth Brotherhood, 460 Due west 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 USA

1000. Asmussen

ⁱEcoHealth Alliance, 460 W 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 United states

⁴Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Caracas, 1020-A Venezuela

C. Machalaba

¹EcoHealth Brotherhood, 460 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 USA

South. Kennedy

²The Food System Institute, LLC and Veterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinarian Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN USA

M. Lopez

ⁱⁱⁱVeterinary Population Medicine Department, Higher of Veterinarian Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN Usa

T. Thou. Wolf

^threeVeterinarian Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinarian Medicine, Academy of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN U.s.

P. Daszak

¹EcoHealth Alliance, 460 Due west 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 USA

D. A. Travis

³Veterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN The states

West. B. Karesh

¹EcoHealth Brotherhood, 460 Westward 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 United states

Received 2016 Aug 23; Revised 2017 Jan 16; Accustomed 2017 Jan 17.

Abstract

The aim of this written report was to narrate the office of the USA in the global exchange of wild animals and draw high volume trade with an middle toward prioritizing health risk cess questions for farther analysis. Here we summarize virtually 14 years (2000–2013) of the most comprehensive data available (USFWS LEMIS system), involving 11 billion individual specimens and an boosted 977 one thousand thousand kilograms of wild fauna. The majority of shipments independent mammals (27%), while the bulk of specimens imported were shells (57%) and tropical fish (25%). Most imports were facilitated by the aquatic and pet industry, resulting in one-third of all shipments containing live animals. The importer reported origin of wildlife was 77.seven% wild-caught and 17.7% captive-reared. Republic of indonesia was the leading exporter of legal shipments, while United mexican states was the leading source reported for illegal shipments. At the specimen level, China was the leading exporter of legal and illegal wildlife imports. The number of annual alleged shipments doubled during the flow examined, illustrating continually increasing demand, which reinforces the need to scale upwardly capacity for border inspections, risk management protocols and disease surveillance. Virtually regulatory oversight of wild fauna trade is aimed at conservation, rather than prevention of disease introduction.

Keywords: wildlife trade, legal trade, illegal trade, affliction, species

Introduction and Purpose

Major drivers of human–beast contact assuasive pathogen exchange include animal domestication for companionship and food product, anthropocentric alteration of the environment and the global movement of animals and goods. Approximately one-quarter of human deaths are caused past infectious disease and nearly 60% of infectious diseases are considered zoonotic (pathogens transmissible between animals and humans); most of these (>70%) are caused past pathogens of wildlife origin (Taylor et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2008; Drexler 2010). Whereas historically illness spillover events were likely to remain local, even undetected due to natural, cultural and geographic barriers, modern transportation allows emerging diseases to spread forth various globally continued networks in a matter of days. In the past decade alone, we have witnessed several novel disease threats to global health, nutrient security and economic stability as a issue of one of these networks—the trade of alive wild animals and/or their products (Karesh et al. 2007, 2012).

Anthropogenic movement and manipulation of domestic and wild animals, including globalized trade, were proposed as "the" biggest potential trigger drivers for disease emergence and spread since the advent of agriculture [WHO, Nutrient and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Earth System for Animal Health (OIE) joint study 2004]. Lack of wildlife trade surveillance and proper systematic direction of the data bachelor represents a major gap to empathize and make up one's mind loftier-risk pathways of potentially agin organisms' introduction. In order to properly appraise this threat to the USA, we must (i) better understand the scope of the trade in terms of species, volume, condition and origin; (2) decide loftier-risk pathways of introduction for further assessment; and (3) understand the regulatory framework that exists to manage these threats.

The goal of this study is to characterize the wild animals trade inbound the USA every bit a baseline for agreement the magnitude of the potential threat these activities may pose to the environment, animals and humans. Although reports be in the literature, to our knowledge this is the broadest summary (in terms of time scale and item) aimed at supporting take a chance assessments surrounding U.s. wildlife trade importation.

The Global Wildlife Trade

Wildlife trade is i of the largest and almost complex commerce exchanges in the globe. The legal global trade in wildlife and wildlife products involves the movement of billions of plants and animals comprising an economical value estimated at Us $300 billion per annum (Ahlenius 2008; WWF/Dalberg 2012). The illegal attribute of wild fauna trade is estimated to be a $five–twenty billion-dollar industry, comparable to the international trade of narcotics and weapons (Wyler and Sheikh 2008; Haken 2011; WWF/Dalberg 2012). There are no adequate estimates of the total scale of wildlife traded throughout the earth given its diversity, telescopic and partial secret beingness. Uncertainty surrounding this issue is enhanced by lack of international data standards and varying commitments to data collection infrastructure inside and between countries.

Fundamental terms such every bit "legal" and "illegal," "formal" and "informal" may be subjective and based upon which regulations are applied and the context of the trade (e.g., national laws vary past state for trade in a particular species, certain species can be traded for detail purposes simply not for others). In some cases, legal merchandise is well recorded by border officials while in other cases it is largely ignored. Confiscated illegal trade is often reported only undetected illegal shipments regularly get unrecorded. Legality of wildlife trade in well-nigh instances does not correlate with disease risk posed, equally the majority of wildlife trade regulations (e.g., the Convention on International Merchandise in Endangered Species of Wild animals and Flora; CITES) are in place to conserve certain species or regulate economies rather than protect wellness.

Although wildlife trade is often lumped into a unmarried entity, this enterprise is comprised of a multitude of products such as nutrient, trophies, pets, fashion, medicine, artifacts and aphrodisiacs. Within each category exist a range of specialty market value chains that vary in motivating economics, cultural and societal origins, geographic source and destination, transportation blazon and route, trader and consumer identities, behavioral practices, species volume and condition, local and international legality. This results in vastly variable threats including loss of biodiversity, invasive alien species, food security and emergence of both loftier- and depression-event pathogens. Thus, threats tin only be quantified in response to specific questions (i.east., examining unique traits of specific market chains/pathways).

Legal Trade

Timber and plants are estimated to incorporate most lxx% of the known (broadly defined) wildlife global merchandise value, leaving non-aquaculture fisheries products responsible for 28% and ornamental fish, mammals, herpetofauna and other species responsible for roughly two% (US $5.27 billion) (Engler and Parry-Jones 2007; Ahlenius 2008).

The majority of live wild brute trade is comprised of aquatic animals and herpetofauna traded mainly for the pet industry. Cathay and Southeast Asian countries are the top global exporters, while the United states and European Matrimony (EU) are the acme importing consumers (Altherr et al. 2011) of aquatic and herpetofauna wild animals. A portion of this trade is recorded past weight only, leaving the full number of individual animals involved unquantified. Approximately 187 million live fish are imported to the USA annually, 92% of which are freshwater taxa (Smith et al. 2008). Live turtles and frogs are also ordinarily imported as pets also as food items. The USA imports on average 2280 tons of frog legs in addition to 2216 tons of live frogs for consumption each yr (Altherr et al. 2011).

Birds and mammals are also highly represented amid a myriad of known global merchandise routes for exotic pets (Bush et al. 2014). A review of this merchandise found information technology to be an expanding, nonetheless fluid and dynamic industry with reasons for its growth including homo population expansion, increasing affluence in Due south America and Eastward Asia (resulting in a larger market for exotic pets), use of the internet and a broadening interface with wildlife habitat (Bush et al. 2014).

Illegal Trade

Given global variability in laws and difficulty in distinguishing betwixt legal and illegal transactions (e.g., false declarations of geographic origin, captive vs. wild-caught, misrepresentation of purpose of import or terminal destination), monitoring legality of wildlife trade is comparable in complexity to weapons trade. In the bulk of instances, the legality of merchandise of wildlife at the international and national level is determined by government tasked with conservation rather than public or animal health protection. Specifically, unpermitted trade of CITES-listed species across international borders comprises the majority of what is considered and/or reported as global illegal wild animals trade.

As with legal trade of wildlife, species are traded illegally as exotic pets, specialty foods, traditional medicines, trophies and style items. Drivers of this illicit trade vary from financial to cultural to relic.

Because the drivers and components of illegal wildlife trade are highly variable, the perpetrators do not fit any ane category nor does their trade beliefs follow a single pathway. Diverging networks include local village hunters, criminal groups engaged in drugs or terrorism, authorities officials and other economically driven sellers and consumers (Hayman and Brack 2002; Warchol et al. 2003; Wyler and Sheikh 2008; WWF/Dalberg 2012).

Trade Data

CITES maintains a database of reported trade of CITES-listed species only. The database is managed by the Un Environment Program–World Conservation Management Middle (UNEP–WCMC) and currently holds 7 million records of trade involving 50,000 scientific names of taxa listed by CITES. Currently, more than 500,000 trade records are reported annually (http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/trade.shtml).

In that location are also trade information held by the United nations Statistics Division Comtrade. These information are maintained in broader categories such as "live animate being" or "reptile skins." Although some of these data are more specific, species level detailed data is generally not available (Chan et al. 2015). The Comtrade data are self-reported past trading partners, and as a effect, at that place are inconsistencies and may besides be variable reporting even within the broader categories.

Additionally, there are data held by national governments that vary widely in their format and scope, and rely largely upon efforts of authorities given national laws and priorities. These data are ofttimes not available to the public but some summaries may exist found in grey literature reports. All importers of wildlife to the USA are mandated to submit a 3–177 (www.fws.gov/le/pdf/3177_1.pdf) asking to the US Fish and Wild fauna Service (USFWS) which in turn records details of the imports into the Police Enforcement Management Information Organisation (LEMIS) database. This database includes both CITES and non-CITES species considered to be wildlife per the USFWS definition (50 CFR fourteen.four). This database therefore holds records of all declared wildlife imports to the USA and, theoretically, details of illegal imports confiscated by authorities at The states ports of entry. Although some wildlife species are regulated past other The states agencies such as the United States Section of Agronomics (USDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Nutrient and Drug Administration (FDA), imports of wildlife as defined by USFWS are also tracked in LEMIS despite this overlap in jurisdiction. Therefore, the LEMIS system represents a comprehensive information source for incoming wildlife to the U.s. (with few exceptions such as bushmeat items that are non adamant to be of CITES origin). LEMIS data are maintained by USFWS for 5 years.

Methods

Wildlife Trade Information Review

Since 2005, LEMIS data spanning January 1, 2000–Baronial 6, 2013, have been collected, standardized, cleaned (due east.g., misspellings) and entered into a propriety database structure curated past EcoHealth Brotherhood (EHA). The dataset, entitled "WILDb," includes taxonomical, geographic and count data for each shipment that entered the U.s.a. and its territories, allowing for pathway analyses to be conducted on a global level for wildlife that entered the The states. The results presented here are a preliminary assay of this comprehensive database of wild animals merchandise into the United states of america. The dataset continues to exist periodically updated.

Results

Total Volume

As of January 2015, WILDb included a full of five,207,420 individually identifiable wild fauna shipments inbound the United states of america between Jan 1, 2000, and August 6, 2013. The number of annually alleged wild fauna shipments doubled during the period examined (Effigy1), reaching approximately 400,000 alleged shipments imported in 2012.

Trends of wild animals imports to the USA from 2000 to 2013 (annotation 2013 data are incomplete). The average annual number of shipments from 2000 to 2012 was 224,916,351 s: 42,377,484; median: 231,564,610.

These shipments included a full of eleven,033,468,322 individual specimens/animals, plus an boosted 977,109,143 kg of specimens/animals measured only in weight. Of these, three,028,647,093 (27.4%) individuals plus 24,449,892 (2.5%) kg were recorded equally live upon entry. Thus, for the menses 2000–2012, there was an annual average of 224.9 meg (due south = 42.3 million; median = 231.5 1000000) live animals plus an additional ane.8 million kilograms of live animals imported into the USA as recorded in the LEMIS database.

We selected the top ten categories represented past the data for illustration of the well-nigh frequent wild animals taxa imported to the USA. The majority of wildlife shipments (by taxon) contained mammal products (most of which were not-live; Figure2a), while the majority of full specimens imported were shells and tropical fish (Figureiib). This is due to the fact that shipments of mammals and their products incorporate fewer individuals or items while large volumes of aquatic species tin can be transported in a unmarried shipment.

Relative pct of taxa imported to the Us betwixt 2000 and 2013, by a shipment, b specimen.

Live Animals

Most ane-third of all wildlife shipments inbound the USA contained live animals, the vast majority of which were imported past the aquatic and pet manufacture. Aquatic, amphibian and invertebrate species accounted for approximately 50% of recorded shipments of alive animals to the USA. Peak specimens involved in such alive shipments are represented in Figure3. In one case the aforementioned subset is removed, reptile, rodent and bird species destined for the exotic pet trade make up the majority of remaining live imports. While roughly 27% of incoming live wildlife shipments contained mammals, this taxon simply represented 4% of overall number of specimens imported (approximately 406,662,421 private mammals, plus additional mammals documented only by weight vs. number of animals). Excluding those recorded only past weight, ii,434,851 alive mammals were imported.

Live wildlife species (every bit species name or identity recorded in LEMIS) most frequently (top ten) imported to the The states between 2000 and 2013, by number of specimens (Penaeus spp.: prawn; Carassius auratus: goldfish; Poecilia spp.: molly and guppy fish; Coenobita clypeatus: Caribbean hermit crab; Rana catesbeiana: American bullfrog).

Country of Origin

The data contained reported both "country of origin" and "country of consign." This reporting is by the importer/exporter, and therefore, land of origin may be falsely reported without means for government to verify source. The stated origin of imported live wildlife from 2000 to 2013 was roughly 77.7% wild and 17.vii% captive (4.half dozen% listed equally ranched or other). Since many species traded may be wild-caught or captive-raised, it remains difficult for authorities to place false reporting of wild versus captive and true land of origin, despite visual inspection and means of import. The reported countries of origin from 2000 to 2013 for all declared US wildlife imports by shipment are shown in Effigy4, with Indonesia every bit the leading exporter. Still, at the specimen level (i.e., number of individual animals/products imported), China was the leading exporter. Many imports were not identified at the species level.

Map reflecting countries of origin of wildlife imports to the United states between 2000 and 2013, by shipment.

China and Southeast Asia was a primary region of origin for US wild fauna imports. The vast bulk of both alive and not-live wild fauna imported from this area were aquatic, invertebrate and herpetofauna species. Indonesia was responsible for exporting the most live wildlife shipments to the U.s. during the period examined, comprised mainly of these aforementioned species. Notwithstanding, alive mammals and birds were likewise imported. Examples of identified alive species imported from China included over 120,000 kg of live American bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana)—a conservatively estimated 360,000 frogs—imported mainly for food, about 30 million alive pheasants (Phasianus colchicus spp.), approximately 150,000 live macaques, in improver to live bats for inquiry and Asiatic chipmunks for pets in fewer numbers. Vietnam was the exporter of 300 shipments of live macaques to the USA during the period examined. Taiwan exported approximately 450,000 finch-like live pet birds including canaries and goldfinches, and Republic of indonesia exported over 85,000 kg of "edible-nest swiftlet" nests to the USA.

The chief origins of mammal imports specifically were Canada and South Africa based on number of shipments, and the USA and People's republic of china for number of specimens/animals imported. More than fifteen,000 alive bison were imported from Canada annually, and boosted amounts recorded only by weight. Likewise hoofstock made upward the bulk of mammal imports from Southward Africa. Wild animals imports that were listed equally having the United states as country of origin included deer, squirrel, bear, alligator, avian products and aquatic species such as squid.

Ports of Entry

Near one-half of all declared wildlife imports to the USA came through the ports of New York, Los Angeles and Miami (USFWS Regions 8, five and 4, respectively) (Figure5).

Circle plot representing the number of shipments (×chiliad) of wildlife from different continents of the globe to US regional ports of entry between 2000 and 2013 (Region 1: Pacific; Region 2: southwest; Region 3: Great Lakes; Region iv: southeast; Region 5: northeast; Region 6: Mountain Prairie; Region 7: Alaska; Region 8: Pacific southwest).

Refused Shipments

Ninety-nine pct of recorded imports were legally declared. This percent is a reflection of the vast corporeality of declared trade recorded dwarfing the number of confiscations at US borders. Commonly refused imports (shipments accounted illegally imported to the U.s.a. past USFWS or other The states agency regulations and thus refused entry) included sturgeon (caviar), baby harp seal pelts, Indian peafowl (peacock) feathers, white tailed deer products such every bit antler, elephant ivory (due east.g., décor, trophies, jewelry), sea turtle products (e.thousand., leather), crocodilians (e.yard., leather), musk deer (traditional medicine products), and reptile and ostrich products (due east.g., leather).

While near illegal shipments presented at the Mexican edge, the majority of illegal specimens (number of animals) that presented at ports of entry originated in Communist china. Such items included deer and bear medicinal items, macaque scientific specimens, live aquatic species and reptiles. Documented origins of illegally imported live wildlife to the U.s. by specimen are illustrated in Figure6, with Indonesia as the leading country of origin. The most common of these live refused specimens were comprised of corals, fish and herpetofauna from Southeast Asia, besides equally birds and corals from the Caribbean. The most common origins of live, non-aquatic confiscations (past specimen) included herpetofauna and bird species from Africa, Asia and South America.

Map reflecting countries of origin of live refused wildlife imports to the U.s.a. between 2000 and 2013, past number of specimens. Note that Red china includes imports from Hong Kong besides.

Discussion

The United states is a superlative global consumer at the national level of legal wildlife and wild animals products according to records, along with China, and the Eu as a whole (Asmussen et al., unpubl. information). To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive report of Us wildlife trade importation for this fourth dimension period and of this calibration. The nigh remarkable finding of this review is that the number of declared wildlife shipments into the United states of america has doubled since 2000. The economical value of wildlife imports paralleled this increment in shipments, rising 108% from 1998 to 2007 (Ferrier 2009).

Pathway Analysis

Species

Over eleven billion specimens and an additional 977 1000000 kilograms of wild fauna were imported during the period examined, with one-tertiary of shipments containing live animals, mostly for the aquatic and pet trade. With this book of live wildlife inbound the U.s.a. for commercial purposes, concerns have been raised regarding the unwanted side outcome of invasive conflicting species and their pathogens. The 50,000 recorded invasive alien species imported to the The states have toll the government an estimated U.s.a. $120 billion per yr (Pimentel et al. 2005) in damage or control efforts. Over 200 species of imported fish take resulted in introductions to the wild in the USA with nearly half establishing breeding populations at to the lowest degree for some time (Smith et al. 2008). Beyond the environmental impacts, translocation of such live wildlife has resulted in pathogen pollution (the introduction of viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites into new environments) with consequences to native wildlife wellness and Us fisheries, for example (Springborn et al. 2015).

While in some cases wild-caught specimens are more likely to harbor pathogens due to previous exposure, poorly captive-reared species also may serve as a source of pathogens. It is suspected that there is a high frequency of false reporting regarding wild versus captive origin given that many species are legal to trade if captive-raised but not if wild-caught; many species are easier and cheaper to catch than to brood; and it is nearly impossible for officials to tell the difference betwixt wild-caught or captive-reared specimens. This is the example in seafood trade where genetic testing data have identified many examples of mislabeling of species and origin (Warner et al. 2013).

It is not surprising that the vast majority of imports (past specimen number) consist of aquatic species and herpetofauna; given that these animals are oftentimes shipped together in big numbers, they are in high demand by consumers and a number of other factors (e.one thousand., small size, lack of requirement for individual health certificates, less likelihood of being protected). The fact that these species are probable to exist shipped alive and in large numbers means that a significant number could survive even given long altitude shipment from Asia. The survival of large numbers of highly stressed live animals entering the USA increases the overall adventure of disease introduction.

Source Countries

The bulk of individual specimens inbound the United states of america, most of which were aquatic species, were from China and Southeast Asia. The degree to which such shipments pose a risk to US natural resources in terms of aquatic pathogen introduction is likely dependent upon their concluding destination and disposition, as well as how water used in shipments is disposed. Mammal and bird species were also imported from this region, with several notable imports such as swiftlet nests, over half of which were imported since the 2005 emergence of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (swiftlets were proven host species of avian flu in Vietnam, although to our knowledge no nests accept tested positive; FAO EMPRES/GLEWS, 25 April 2013).

Canada and S Africa were responsible for importing significant numbers of mammals, including alive hoofstock and their products. Interestingly, the U.s.a. is a master land of origin of its own imports. This may occur if an particular passes through another state such equally takes identify when importing wild animals from Alaska to the lower 48 states via Canada or if wildlife species are exported for processing so re-imported, equally we do with some agricultural species.

The majority of illegal shipments of live non-aquatic wildlife were confiscated at the Mexican border, especially those containing reptiles and birds imported for the pet merchandise (Ferrier 2009). Overall, nigh non-aquatic confiscations were from African and Asian countries and were comprised largely of reptiles as well as birds targeted for the pet trade.

Point of Entry

Virtually one-half of all declared wildlife imports to the USA came through the ports of New York, Los Angeles and Miami, thus providing opportunities for targeted strengthening of monitoring and law enforcement efforts. The vast majority of wildlife imports through New York are commercial, and 97% of declared wildlife imports come up via air cargo (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Reasons for high traffic through New York include the fact that it is a fashion capital, the home of many scientific and educational facilities, and a elevation port of entry for tropical fish importers (Us Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2004). Accordingly, the pinnacle live imports to New York are medicinal leeches and fish, while height bolt include caviar, shell products, furs and skins (United states Fish and Wild fauna Service (USFWS) (2004). Los Angeles is also a predominantly commercial port when it pertains to wildlife imports. Over lxxx% of imports arrived via air and well-nigh remaining imports via ocean cargo. Main imports include alive aquatic species and reptiles too as beat out products, jewelry, eggs and skin/hair products (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Miami, the largest port of entry from Central and South America, showed similar trends, receiving over xc% of its imports by air, comprised mainly of fish and reptile species.

Use and Legality

The purpose of international illegal wildlife trade varies by region. For example, in China illicit imports are primarily for exotic foods, traditional medicines and trophies; caviar, style and exotic pets are in demand in the EU; and exotic pets, souvenir items and hunting products comprise most illegal imports to the USA (Wyler and Sheikh 2008; Ferrier 2009; Karesh et al. 2012; Bush et al. 2014).

Given existing trade and travel routes, much of the merchandise that enters Northward America passes via flying patterns from Africa and Asia via the EU (Asmussen et al., unpubl. data), itself a significant global consumer of illegal wildlife. From 2003 to 2004, the Eu executed over 7000 seizures including 3.5 million CITES-listed items (Engler and Parry-Jones 2007). The almanac seizure rate in the United states of america is similar to this number based on our analyses.

A 2009 review of the U.s. LEMIS database found that only i% of all commercial wildlife shipments, and 0.4% by value, were refused entry by USFWS (Ferrier 2009). This finding is in alignment with our review of the WILDb database from 2000 to 2013. Nevertheless, this percentage is based on assessment of refused shipments in the LEMIS database and therefore does not accept into account smuggled shipments non detected; detected by Department of Homeland Security Customs and Edge Protection (DHS CBP) but not reported to USFWS; detected by USFWS but not entered into LEMIS after the fact; or detected by CBP but reported only to another regulating bureau of the same item such as the CDC, USDA or FDA. As previously noted, the USFWS LEMIS database is mainly a reflection of approved or rejected wildlife imports that are alleged to USFWS by the importer and that non-declared (and thus illegal) imports that are successfully detected are washed so through the DHS CBP. These confiscations should be reported to USFWS and entered into LEMIS; however, confiscation information housed in CBP databases are not readily bachelor to the public in a significant level of detail for comparison. Thus, the amount of illegally imported wildlife is more than likely an underestimate.

Study Limitations

As with all big data, at that place is doubtfulness in this dataset. For example, non-CITES-listed species imports ofttimes lacked detail in several areas of the USFWS LEMIS database, suggesting such shipments were less scrutinized. Typically, "species" was recorded by USFWS using a 4-letter "species lawmaking." However, codes exist for several taxonomic levels (species, genus and more general "not-CITES" or "NA" descriptors), and a big portion of the data did not include species level identification. Further, codes often overlapped and/or several different codes were used to describe a single species. Currently, WILDb contains 14,074 unique species codes. EHA was able to define some level of taxonomic information for over 98% of the data entries despite the fact that the majority of these did not provide specific species identification. This study was further limited to wildlife imports that were either accepted or rejected past authorities and did not include illegal shipments that evaded authorities equally those get inherently unrecorded and unrecognized.

Given the sheer book of live wildlife and wild animals product imports to the USA, and the fact that most refused shipments were due to CITES status and non based upon the gamble of disease introduction, we believe it is prudent to farther assess chance of pathogen introduction via wildlife trade. The current regulatory atmosphere for this goal is highly fragmented. The USFWS currently does not focus primarily on disease prevention, but on conservation status; the CDC currently focuses on specific health risks associated with non-human primates, African rodents and bats; and the USDA regulates non-domestic hoofstock, birds and few other specific mammals that originate in countries positive for reportable diseases. These species are regulated for specific diseases and thus may exist canonical entry if accounted rubber.

Conclusion

Many countries of origin for legal and illegal wild animals imports to the United states of america include "hotspots" of emerging and reemerging infectious and zoonotic pathogens (Jones et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2009) such equally HPAI, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus, Nipah virus and Brucella ssp., likewise as economically of import livestock diseases. Introducing disease purposefully or accidentally need non utilize illegal trade since regulations concerned with pathogen introduction via merchandise are focused mainly on domestic species (regulated past CDC and USDA) and not enforced by the bureau primarily monitoring wild fauna merchandise into the USA (USFWS).

Since the majority of regulatory oversight of the wild fauna merchandise is not specifically aimed at prevention of illness introduction, information technology remains a challenge to prioritize collection of the relevant data or risk mitigation measures. The Congressional Research Service notes that while the United states of america is involved in CITES, and contributes to the Coalition Confronting Wild animals Trafficking and Asean (Asean) wild animals law enforcement network, the U.s. "does not participate in international efforts to regulate international wild animals trade to prevent illness transmission or invasive species, as no such international organization currently exists" (Wyler and Sheikh 2008).

In 2014, President Obama issued the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking to guide federal agencies in the global fight against wild animals trade. Yet even after the recent Ebola outbreaks in Africa, disease has non been a priority in this fight. The United states does adhere to the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, which regulates the international trade in animals, creature products and plants, and is a member of the OIE, which sets international health standards for animals and creature products, recently including wildlife. In an attempt to support this effort, EHA recently worked with the OIE to develop a comprehensive list of proven wild fauna hosts of OIE-listed diseases in gild to inform member countries of the broad range of potential carriers of diseases of importance and to enhance awareness surrounding potential wildlife trade health risks (Smith et al., unpubl. data).

We exercise not notwithstanding have a comprehensive picture of the scope and associated wellness risks posed past the international trade of wild fauna. Nonetheless, information technology is articulate that the U.s. is a global leader in legal and illegal wildlife consumption. The need for wild animals for use as companion animals/pets has been responsible for the majority of the live animate being trade in the Western Hemisphere. This market place involves billions of private live animals, ranging from invertebrates and corals to non-human being primates, originating from all over the globe. The need for trophies, fashion, traditional medicines and exotic foods are some of the main drivers of the importation of wildlife products. The import process provides an opportunity to reinforce "critical command points" prior to entry through Usa borders. This is especially pertinent given that there is very limited traceability of wildlife species once entry has been gained into the USA.

The overarching goal of this work is to mitigate adventure of pathogen introduction to The states agriculture via wild animals merchandise. To accomplish this, nosotros must commencement understand and characterize trade pathways every bit described herein. Given the large volume of imports, limited enforcement resources and lack of surveillance tools and infrastructure for many wildlife spp., the authors believe in that location is great opportunity for both regulated and non-regulated diseases of importance to public, agronomical or wildlife wellness to enter the USA. Thus, there should be an emphasis inside the US Government and wildlife affliction communities on filling gaps in the data for high priority pathways in order to improve narrate risk. Specifically, threats posed past (1) large volumes of live aquatic species, (2) wild brute host species not currently regulated (east.g., some rodents) and (iii) species closely related to domestic agriculture (eastward.g., hoofstock/camels) that may enter the United states for multiple purposes were prioritized by this working group for farther assessment.

Acknowledgement

This project is supported by the US Section of Homeland Security S&T through a grant awarded by the Food Protection and Defense Institute. This study was made possible by the generous back up of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT-2 projection. The contents are the responsibleness of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the Us Government. The authors thank the United States Fish and Wild animals Service for their contribution of LEMIS information.

References

• Ahlenius H (2008) The economy of legal wild fauna merchandise. http://world wide web.grida.no/graphicslib/particular/the-economy-of-legal-wildlife-trade_e1b8
• Altherr S, Goyenechea A, Schubert D (2011) Canapés to extinction: the international trade in frogs' legs and its ecological impact. Pro Wild animals, Defenders of Wild animals and Animal Welfare Institute (eds.). Munich (Germany) and Washington, DC
• Bush ER, Bakery SE, Macdonald DW. Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(iii):663–676. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12240. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chan H-Grand, Zhang H, Yang F, Fischer G. Improve customs systems to monitor global wildlife merchandise. Science. 2015;348(6232):291–292. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3141. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Drexler M (2010) Establish of medicine (US) What you demand to know about infectious disease. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13006
• Engler K, Parry-Jones R. Opportunity or threat: the part of the European Union in global wild animals trade. Brussels: TRAFFIC Europe; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• FAO EMPRES/GLEWS (2013) EMPRES Animal Flu Update: Brute Flu H5 Events. http://cdn.aphca.org/dmdocuments/HPAI_update_130425.pdf
• Ferrier P (2009) The economic science of agricultural and wildlife smuggling. U.s.a. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
• Haken J (2011) Transnational crime in the developing world. Global fiscal integrity. Washington, DC: Center for International Policy
• Hayman G, Brack D (2002) International ecology criminal offence: the nature and control of environmental blackness markets. The Imperial Institute of International Affairs. London
• Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, Daszak P. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008;451(7181):990–993. doi: 10.1038/nature06536. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Karesh WB, Melt RA, Gilbert M, Newcomb J. Implications of wildlife trade on the movement of avian influenza and other infectious diseases. J Wil Dis. 2007;43(3):S55–S59. [Google Scholar]
• Karesh WB, Smith KM, Asmussen MV (2012) The unregulated and informal merchandise in wildlife: implications for biodiversity and health. Animal Health and Biodiversity: Preparing for the Future. Karesh W B. Paris, France, Globe Organization for Fauna Health. Compendium of the OIE Global Conference on Wildlife, pp 51–57
• Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economical costs associated with alien-invasive species in the U.s.a.. Ecol Econ. 2005;52:273–288. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.ten.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Smith KF, Behrens M, Schloegel LM, Marano N, Burgiel S, Daszak P. Ecology. Reducing the risks of the wild fauna trade. Scientific discipline. 2009;324(5927):594–595. doi: 10.1126/science.1174460. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Smith KF, Behrens Dr., Max LM, Daszak P. The states drowning in unidentified fishes: telescopic, implications, and regulation of live fish import. Conserv Lett. 2008;1(2):103–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00014.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Springborn MR, Keller RP, Elwood S, Romagosa CM, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Daszak P. Integrating invasion and disease in the risk cess of live bird trade. Divers Distrib. 2015;21(i):101–110. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12281. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhouse ME. Run a risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001;356(1411):983–989. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0888. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) US wildlife trade: an overview for 1997–2003. USFWS
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2004) US wildlife merchandise: an overview for 1997–2003. Office of Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit of measurement. Arlington, VA, pp one–61
• Warner K, Walker T, Lowell B, Hirshfield G (2013) Oceana written report reveals seafood fraud nationwide. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/National_Seafood_Fraud_Testing_Results_FINAL.pdf
• Warchol M, Zupan L, Clack West. Transnational criminality: an analysis of the illegal wild fauna market in Southern Africa. Int Crim Justice Rev. 2003;13(ane):one–27. doi: ten.1177/105756770301300101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• WWF/Dalberg (2012) Fighting illicit wild fauna trafficking: a consultation with governments. Gland: WWF International
• Wyler LS, Sheikh PA (2008) International illegal trade in wild fauna: threats and The states policy

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357285/

Posted by: tharpsandint.blogspot.com

Share this post