The perils of flawed science in wildlife trade literature

Despite broad scientific consensus that sustainable use of wildlife can enhance conservation efforts, ethical concerns have led some community groups to oppose use of wild animals. Voicing those concerns is legitimate, but underlying philosophical bias should not influence science-based analysis and interpretation. We argue that philosophical biases are common in the scientific literature on trade in wildlife. The critically important case of bias surrounding the use of reptile leathers for luxury fashion illustrates the problem. Based on analysis of official seizures of fashion products made from wildlife, a recent study inferred that criminal activity (as inferred by noncompliance with regulations) was common and increasing and, hence, that authorities needed to adopt more stringent restrictions on the trade. In fact, the conclusions of that study are artifacts of pseudoreplication (e.g., multiple counts of single violations) and biased sampling (e.g., focus on companies with high rates of error) and run directly opposite to actual patterns in the data. As a proportion of overall trade, rates of noncompliance are exceptionally low (<0.4%), are declining, and result primarily from paper-work errors rather than criminal intent (e.g., such errors are more frequent for goods shipped by government authorities than by the commercial fashion industry). The recommendation by the study authors to prohibit the international trade in wildlife-based fashion products is imperiling a sustainable trade that can benefit biodiversity and people's livelihoods by providing financial incentives for conservation of species and habitats. This example offers a warning of the dangers of basing research on the wildlife trade on ethical or philosophical positions rather than objective evaluations of evidence.

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.