WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE/BREEDING

[Lisbeth]

Only one person is needed to start it all

[Lisbeth]

The wildlife trade threatens people and animals alike (commentary)

Commentary by David S. Wilcove on 5 February 2020

- Princeton University professor of ecology, evolutionary biology, and public affairs David S. Wilcove argues that the coronavirus outbreak in China shows that the wildlife trade imperils more than animals: It puts people at risk of zoonotic diseases.

- What do the coronavirus, HIV, and the impending extinction of the world’s rhinoceroses have in common? The answer is that they are all a result of the wildlife trade, a rapidly growing, multi-billion-dollar enterprise that is driving species to extinction, damaging ecosystems, and—increasingly—threatening human health.

- What is most urgently needed is a change in cultural norms in cities around the world, especially in Asia and Africa: a recognition that keeping wild animals as pets or selling them for products (apart from sustainably caught seafood) is both a threat to the environment and to human health.

- This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.

What do the coronavirus, HIV, and the impending extinction of the world’s rhinoceroses have in common? The answer is that they are all a result of the wildlife trade, a rapidly growing, multi-billion-dollar enterprise that is driving species to extinction, damaging ecosystems, and—increasingly—threatening human health.

The coronavirus originated in a “seafood” market in Wuhan that sold much more than fish; Chinese authorities found everything from hedgehogs to wild boars to crocodiles for sale there, providing ideal conditions for viruses to jump to new hosts and, ultimately, to people. HIV can be traced to people killing and butchering chimpanzees for sale in the “bushmeat” trade. And all five of the world’s surviving rhinos face extinction as people hunt them for their horns, which are carved into status trinkets or ground up for their fictitious medicinal value.


Market in China. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay

A study published last fall in Science estimated that one in every four bird or mammal species on earth is caught up in the wildlife trade. Add the reptiles, amphibians, and tropical fish, and we are talking about thousands of species that are being taken from the wild and sold as food, pets, or products in legal and illegal markets around the world. The illegal component alone may be comparable in value to the trafficking of weapons or drugs.

Scientists increasingly talk about an “empty forest” syndrome – seemingly intact tropical forests where the large mammals and birds have been hunted to extinction, and the desirable songbirds have been trapped for sale as pets. Unless this trade in wildlife is curbed, we face a future of accelerating animal extinctions, forests devoid of their important species, and, most alarmingly, disease epidemics. So, what can be done?


Caged birds in Jakarta’s bird market. Photo by David Wilcove.

There is an international treaty, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), designed to prevent international commerce in endangered species. However, in a study we published last year, University of Chicago economist Eyal Frank and I showed that over a quarter of imperilled species caught up in the international wildlife trade have yet to be protected under CITES. The process for identifying and protecting such species must be expedited, and funding for enforcement of CITES must be increased.

CITES can help to prevent the extinction of species traded between nations, but it is powerless to stop the domestic wildlife trade within nations. Yet a disease that originates in a market in Wuhan or in any city in any country can quickly become a global threat when an infected person boards a plane or train. The bottom line is that any country’s wildlife trade poses a threat to all countries.

Wealthy countries like the United States can play a useful role without being seen as meddling in the affairs of other nations. Through foreign aid and technical assistance, we can help developing nations increase their food security, thereby reducing the need to consume wild animals. And we can help them to strengthen enforcement of their wildlife protection laws, while boosting our own customs inspections.

Individual states can help, too. In December, Governor Cuomo signed into law the “Save Our Species Bill” that gives New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation the authority to ban trade in the state of any species (or parts thereof) it considers to be in danger of extinction.


Southern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum simum) in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Rhinos are threatened by demand for their horn for use in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

But what is most urgently needed is a change in cultural norms in cities around the world, especially in Asia and Africa: a recognition that keeping wild animals as pets or selling them for products (apart from sustainably caught seafood) is both a threat to the environment and a threat to human health. This change has to come from within; it cannot be imposed by other countries.

This will be an enormous challenge, but there are at least a few hopeful signs. In China, for example, the popularity of shark-fin soup, a delicacy that requires the killing of millions of sharks every year, has plummeted as younger people reject this destructive tradition. A well-crafted public relations campaign led by celebrities played an important role in changing attitudes.

It will take countless more efforts like this to suppress the global wildlife trade. In the meantime, we are all at risk.

David S. Wilcove is a professor of ecology, evolutionary biology, and public affairs at Princeton University.

[Flutterby]

The endangered pangolin possibly linked to deadly coronavirus spread in China

2020-02-07 19:52

The endangered pangolin may be the link that facilitated the spread of the novel coronavirus across China, Chinese scientists said on Friday.

Researchers have long suspected that the virus, which has now killed more than 630 people and infected some 31 000, was passed from an animal to a human at a market in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year.

Researchers at the South China Agricultural University have identified the scaly mammal as a "potential intermediate host", the university said in a statement, without providing further details.

The new virus is believed to have originated in bats, but researchers have suggested there could have been an "intermediate host" in the transmission to humans.

After testing more than 1 000 samples from wild animals, scientists from the university found the genome sequences of viruses found on pangolins to be 99% identical to those on coronavirus patients, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The pangolin is considered the most trafficked animal on the planet and more than one million have been snatched from Asian and African forests in the past decade, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

They are destined for markets in China and Vietnam, where their scales are used in traditional medicine - despite having no medical benefits - and their meat is bought on the black market.

Shadowy wildlife trade

Experts on Friday called for the Chinese scientists to release more data from their research.

Simply reporting the similarity between the genome sequences of viruses is "not sufficient," said James Wood, a veterinary medicine professor at the University of Cambridge.

Wood said the results could have been caused by "contamination from a highly infected environment."

"We would need to see all of the genetic data to get a feel for how related the human and pangolin viruses are," Jonathan Bell, a professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said.

China in January ordered a temporary ban on the trade in wild animals until the epidemic is under control.

The country has long been accused by conservationists of tolerating a shadowy trade in endangered animals for food or as ingredients in traditional medicines.

A price list that circulated on China's internet for a business at the Wuhan market showed a menagerie of animals or animal-based products including live foxes, crocodiles, wolf puppies, giant salamanders, snakes, rats, peacocks, porcupines, camel meat and other game - 112 items in all.

The SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus that killed hundreds of people in China and Hong Kong in 2002-03 also has been traced to wild animals, with scientists saying it likely originated in bats, later reaching humans via civets.

"Working to end the trade in wildlife can help to resolve some of the longer-term risks associated with animal reservoirs of zoonoses," Wood said, referring to infectious diseases that can be passed between animals and humans.

[Dindingwe]

The revenge of the little Pangolin
Maybe they will now leave it alone !

[Lisbeth]

[Lisbeth]

China plans to enforce permanent ban on illegal wildlife markets!

BY TYLER LEIGH VIVIER, FEB 7, 2020

China has come out to say they are looking to make the temporary ban on illegal wildlife markets more permanent which is very good news for SA!

South Africa (07 February 2020) – The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) welcomes the announcement by the Chinese Communist Party to enforce the ban on illegal wildlife trade and increase regulation of wildlife markets. Evidence points to wildlife markets as a source of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which has resulted in human and economic costs. The EWT emphasises our position that these markets pose serious risks to public safety, conservation, and animal welfare, and we urge the Chinese government to follow through with its announcement.

On 4 February 2020, the Chinese government announced plans to escalate regulation of wet markets and enforce the ban on illegal wildlife trade. At a meeting of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo Standing Committee, the government issued a statement announcing its determination to “resolutely ban and severely crack down on illegal wildlife markets and trade,” recognising the threat to public health from these unregulated markets. The EWT sees this as a strong step in the right direction, following the government’s temporary ban on 26 January.

The impact of the 2019-nCoV has extended far beyond the Wuhan province. By 6 February, the infection had surpassed 24,500 cases and nearly 500 deaths globally. The World Health Organisation released a USD$675 million Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan outlining activities and resources for the global health community to prepare for and respond to the epidemic. Its far-flung reach is evidence that this zoonotic disease (one that transmits between animals to humans) can spread quickly and broadly.

There have also been detrimental financial costs associated with 2019-nCoV. On Monday 3 February, the Chinese stock markets plunged 8%, wiping out a total $445 billion in market value. While the SARS outbreak of 2003 cost $40 billion, the growth of the Chinese economy over the past 17 years means the impact of 2019-nCoV is much more significant. Some economic forecasters have attempted to quantify the global impact; Oxford Economics predicts annual Chinese economic growth will drop from 6% pre-virus, to 4%. International retailers have closed operations in the country. Corporations with facilities in neighbouring countries, such as Hyundai in South Korea, have halted production. China is a major buyer of industrial commodities, and crude oil and copper have subsequently dropped in price.

The origin of 2019-nCoV was likely Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention tested 585 animal samples from this market and confirmed that 33 contained 2019-nCoV. Initial cases seemed to originate from contact with wildlife kept in unsanitary conditions, and the most likely source was bats. In late January, experts warned that accelerated human-to-human transmission was possible. This was confirmed on 28 January with the first transmission in Germany.

The EWT’s Wildlife in Trade Programme works to address trade-related threats to threatened wildlife. Several threatened and protected species from southern Africa regularly make their way to Chinese markets, where they are sold live or for their parts. Ironically, customers consume thee animals for their supposed health benefits, and yet several diseases have now been linked to the consumption of wildlife. In these ‘wet markets’ customers come into close contact with animals such as pangolins, bats, snakes, and many others. The conditions in which the animals are kept has repeatedly been condemned for being inhuman and detrimental to both animal and human welfare.

After the SARS outbreak, the Chinese government lost momentum in its efforts to quell illegal wildlife trade. This must not happen again. Attitudes around wildlife consumption may be slow to change, but a profound move by the Chinese government may help to accelerate this. China could thus prove instrumental in combatting the global illegal wildlife trade. Following its recent announcement, the Chinese government must now present its plan to permanently ban illegal wildlife trade and crack down on market regulation.

Sources: Endangered Wildlife Trust

[Klipspringer]

https://africanelephantjournal.com/dise ... e-problem/?

Disease outbreaks caused by wildlife trade are a global, not just a Chinese problem
POSTED ON15TH FEB 2020

By Pauline Verheij – EcoJust

It is February 2020 and the world is in the grip of another infectious disease outbreak. The disease, first reported from Wuhan, China, on 31 December 2019, concerns a corona virus which has been named COVID-19. The disease is spreading fast and experts warn COVID-19 might become a global pandemic.

On 26 January 2020 it became clear that COVID-19 originated from a seafood market in Wuhan where purportedly wildlife was sold illegally. Experts of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) successfully isolated the virus in samples taken from the market.

On that same day China put in place a nationwide ban on wildlife trade in markets, supermarkets, restaurants, and e-commerce platforms.

Since the ban was established China launched an unprecedented crackdown on wildlife trade. Within a timespan of 20 days, Chinese authorities investigated 682 cases, sentenced 680 traffickers and confiscated 38,000 wild animals and 2,347kg of wildlife products.

The ban was announced to be temporary. However, pressure is building on China to make the ban permanent, both from outside and inside China. Outrage on social media by Chinese netizens in the wake of the virus outbreak indicate that support for wildlife consumption in China has reduced significantly.

On 10 February 2020 the National People’s Congress (NPC) of China declared it would revise wildlife protection laws and regulations in order to “toughen the crackdown on and punishment for the illegal hunting and eating of wild animals”. An official stated that “the supervision, inspection and law enforcement should be strengthened to ensure that wildlife trade markets are banned and closed.” It is still unclear what this legislative change will entail. Even so it is a promising sign.

At the time of writing (13 February 2020) the virus is far from under control. On 12 February the World Health Organization reported 45171 confirmed cases (44730 in China) with a total of 1115 confirmed dead (1114 in China).

Given the scale of the wildlife trade in China (both legal and illegal) it is good news for wild animals that China has acknowledged and is addressing the risks of disease transmission through the trade in wild animals. However, while the eyes of the world are on China and its efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus, it is important to understand that the spread of diseases from wildlife to humans through the wildlife trade is not a Chinese problem. It happens on all continents and is very much a global phenomenon.

Wildlife consumption is widespread across Southeast Asia, Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America as well as (though perhaps to a lesser extent) North America and Europe. The trade and consumption of wild animal meat (bushmeat) in Central Africa is estimated to be over one billion kilograms per year. Bushmeat consumption in the Amazon Basin is estimated to range between 67 and 164 million kilograms annually. Africa and Latin America are seeing a worrying surge in wildlife poaching in response to a sharply increasing demand from urban populations where wild meat consumption has become fashionable. Bushmeat is not only consumed locally and regionally. Europe for example is an important destination: A recent study, involving researchers from the Zoological Society of London, showed that illegal bushmeat is ‘rife in Europe’. The study estimated that as much as 270 tonnes of bushmeat might be coming through a single airport in Paris annually.

Since the 1990s scientists have documented the rising threat of emerging infectious diseases spreading among people and other animals, fuelled by human activities ranging from the bushmeat consumption and the wildlife trade to the destruction of wild habitats.

Scientists have confirmed that the majority of human Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID’s), viruses in particular, are of animal origin. Furthermore, they have established that EID’s have increased in frequency, with the proportion of those emerging from wild animals increasing substantially over the last four decades of the twentieth century.

Pathogens originating from wild animals include human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1 and HIV-2), Ebola haemorrhagic fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), Marburg virus, Sin Nombre virus, Nipah, Hendra and Menangle virus, West Nile virus and Borrelia burgdorferi.

The origin of HIV is widely thought to be linked with the consumption of primates. Ebola outbreaks in humans have been traced to infected great apes hunted for food. The SARS coronavirus was associated with the international trade in small carnivores and bats.

The transmission of infectious agents due to wildlife trade is not limited to human pathogens: domestic animals as well as native wildlife are also heavily impacted. Examples include:

Legal and illegal trade in domestic and wild birds has played a significant role in the global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1, which has killed more than 240 people, many millions of poultry, and an unknown number of wild birds and mammals, including endangered species, since 2003.
Amphibian chytridiomycosis or Chytrid fungus ( dendrobatidisand B. salamandrivorans), a fungus that eats the skins of amphibians, has been dubbed “the most destructive pathogen ever”. The disease has been introduced globally via the international trade in amphibians and via the human-assisted introduction of invasive species. It has caused declines globally in at least 501 frog and salamander species. Of these 501 species, 90 have gone extinct or are presumed extinct in the wild and another 124 species have declined in number by more than 90 percent.
The Monkeypox virus, first identified in humans in 1970 in DRC, is mostly transmitted to people from wild animals such as rodents and primates. The virus has been exported from Africa a few times, including through the trade in wild African rodents that were imported into the US from Ghana.

It is evident that the rise in emerging infectious diseases has a huge impact on public health and causes immense human suffering. Disease outbreaks have furthermore destabilised trade, have devastating effects on human livelihoods, and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage globally. In 2004 Newcomb estimated that the rash of livestock disease outbreaks around the world since the mid 1990s, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza, and swine fever (but excluding HIV/AIDS) have cost world economies over $100 billion .

The cost of global biodiversity loss due to disease is yet to be assessed.

For decades scientists and conservationists have raised the alarm about the grave risks posed to public health, biodiversity and economies by the global wildlife trade. Until now governments have failed to take these threats seriously.

The COVID-19 outbreak appears to have succeeded in firing up the international debate on wildlife trade and consumption. It is hoped that governments, international organisations, NGOs, the industry and other key stakeholders will have the wisdom to look beyond China and to acknowledge that this is a global problem that needs to be tackled on a global level. Unless decisive, holistic actions are taken to address the role of wildlife trade and consumption as a key mechanism for disease transmission, disease outbreaks associated with the global movement of wildlife will continue to occur and increase in impact globally.

Veterinary experts have proposed taking precautionary measures focusing on wildlife markets to regulate, reduce, or eliminate the trade in wildlife in order to decrease the risks of disease for humans, domestic animals, wildlife, and ecosystems. Whilst a global ban is inconceivable, it is time to take an honest look at the wildlife trade and to weigh the benefits reaped by a relatively limited number of people in the industry against the immense costs to society as a whole and our natural world of continuing the unbridled exploitation of wildlife.

[Peter Betts]

Keep our wildlife safe ...

[Lisbeth]

The coronavirus was needed to get to this point but still not permanent


China bans trade, consumption of wild animals due to coronavirus
By Reuters• 25 February 2020 BEIJING

HONG KONG, Feb 25 (Reuters) - China's top legislature said it will immediately ban the trade and consumption of wild animals, in a fast-track decision it says will allow the country to win the battle against the coronavirus outbreak.

The announcement, made late on Monday according to the official Xinhua News Agency, comes after an initial suspension of the trade and consumption of wildlife in January.

Scientists suspect, but have not proven, that the new coronavirus passed to humans from animals. The disease has now killed almost 2,700 people in China and spread to countries around the globe.

Some of the earliest infections were found in people who had exposure to a wildlife market in Hubei’s provincial capital Wuhan, where bats, snakes, civets and other animals were sold.

“There has been a growing concern among people over the consumption of wild animals and the hidden dangers it brings to public health security since the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak,” said Zhang Tiewei, a spokesman for the top legislature’s Legislative Affairs Commission.

Zhang said it was both urgent and necessary for the decision to be made at the “critical moment for the epidemic prevention and control”.

The decision, made by the National People’s Congress, stipulates the illegal consumption and trade of wildlife will be “severely punished” as will be hunting, trading or transporting wild animals for the purpose of consumption.

The use of wild animals for non-edible purposes, including scientific research, medical use and display, will be subject to strict examination, approval and quarantine inspection.

Prior to the announcement, traders legally selling donkey, dog, deer, crocodile and other meat told Reuters they planned to get back to business as soon as the markets reopen.

Many academics, environmentalists and residents in China have joined international conservation groups in calling for a permanent ban. Online debate within China has also heavily favoured a permanent ban.

(Reporting by Farah Master; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

[Lisbeth]

China’s ban on wildlife consumption is an overdue death knell for lion bone industry

By Don Pinnock• 24 February 2020

The Chinese government has placed an immediate ban on the illegal trading of wildlife and the consumption of wild animals. This follows a link between pangolin meat and the coronavirus outbreak.

Despite international outrage, South Africa is allowing a quota of at least 800 lion skeletons a year for consumption in South-East Asia, including China, where they’re used for traditional medicine and tiger bone wine. They’re not checked for TB and could be infused with dangerous tranquilisers used to pacify the animals before they’re shot.

As the bones are consumed or used in food processing, the export is violating both South Africa’s Foodstuffs Act and the Chinese ban on imports.

The ban imposed on Monday 24 February 2020 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (China’s top legislature) covers all forms of wildlife consumption and will have an immediate impact on exports. It said the move “aims to safeguard biological and ecological safety and effectively prevent major public health risks, among other purposes”.

The latest findings on lion bones underline the wisdom of such a blanket ban, adding another dimension to the health threat from wildlife consumption.

The tuberculosis virus is tenacious. It can survive in bones ground to powder and scraps of meat attached to them. For this reason, according to Professor Irvin Modlin of the Yale University Medical School, says South Africa’s export of lion bones to China and Vietnam poses a considerable health risk.

Added to that is the danger of the tranquiliser mostly used in the slaughter process. The South African Veterinary Association (Sava) has confirmed that the procedure is not regulated. The association has warned that the tranquiliser may be harmful and even lethal to humans and to other animals which feed on the carcasses of darted animals.

“These products carry a warning: Do not use in food-producing animals,” says Modlin. “One of the products typically used is teratogenic and can cause abnormalities of physiological development during pregnancy, resulting in human congenital abnormalities and also in other non-birth developmental stages, including puberty.”

Sava says the tranquiliser and TB could be transferred in the production of tiger bone wine, for which lion bones are increasingly used. There is also a health risk to communities who are given lion meat by breeders after the animal has been deboned.

These warnings follow research that found a strong possibility that the coronavirus Covid-19 was transmitted to humans via pangolins and warnings that consuming wild animals carries considerable risks.

Following research into lion bone exports, the EMS Foundation became alarmed at the health consequences for workers slaughtering the animals as well as mainly Chinese and Vietnamese using imported bones.

In a letter to Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, the foundation asked him to define his department’s position on the human consumption of lion products and what export procedures were in place to avoid risks of direct and indirect contamination to humans.

The foundation also wrote to Agriculture Minister Thoko Didiza, pointing out that lion slaughter was not being carried out at registered abattoirs and could not be deemed safe for human consumption. Neither department responded.

The foundation noted that the Meat Safety Act defined unsafe as being “unsafe for human and animal consumption by reason of a disease, an abnormal condition, putrefaction, decomposition, contamination or residues, or by reason of exposure or contact”.

“As the lions which are killed and their defleshed body parts are not for human consumption in South Africa,” said the foundation, “this fact should not exonerate the state from seeing that the killing and rendering of the carcass process is conducted under the directives of the Animal Slaughter, Meat, and Animal Products Hygiene Act.

“It would also be expected that the state would take this into consideration as a statutory duty imposed by responsible practice and the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act.”

An investigation by Senior Inspector Reinette Meyer of the Bloemfontein SPCA found the slaughter conditions on a Free State farm she visited, Wag-’n-Bietjie, owned by lion breeder André Steyn, to be almost beyond belief and far from sanitary.

“It was shocking,” she said. “We couldn’t believe what was happening. You could smell the blood. The lions got shot in the camp and then were all brought into this one room. The flies were terrible.”

She discovered lions were being left in small, cramped cages. A total of 54 lions had been killed at the farm in just two days. They were first hit with tranquilliser darts before being shot dead with a .22-calibre rifle.

It is understood they were shot through the ear directly into their brains “because overseas buyers will not pay for damaged skulls”. Some of the lions are believed to have been trucked about 400km to the farm from a “safari park” near Johannesburg.

“Dead lions, some skinned and others waiting to be skinned, littered the bloodstained floor,” said Meyer. “A pile of innards and skeletons lay elsewhere inside, while discarded internal body parts were piled high in overflowing black plastic bags on a trailer outside.”

The farm’s permits have been revoked.

Sava says TB can be transmitted to humans through accidental contact and through the consumption of animal meat or bone infusions such as lion bone wine. Lion meat, after the animal has been deboned, is also often given to communities, exposing them to harmful contamination.

Head of Biomedical Sciences at Stellenbosch University, Prof Paul van Heerden, agreed that South Africa may be exporting tuberculosis through trade in lion bones.

He told EMS Foundation that “infected lions and lion bone have the potential to infect other animals or humans with bovine TB. It is inherently resistant to one of the four most important drugs used to treat primary human TB.

“Treatment of humans with this form of TB is therefore compromised. I am of the opinion that uncontrolled exposure of humans to bones from animals, in particular lion bones, poses a risk for development of bovine TB.”

Rustenberg environmental lawyer Carel Zietsman has reiterated that the tranquilliser used on lions can be lethal if it enters the bloodstream of humans. It can also be lethal to animals who feed on the carcasses of darted animals.

“There is no guarantee that the product is not transmitted into the bone structure of the animal and that South Africa is not exporting poisonous products.

“In environmental law, where it’s not always possible to predict environmental consequences, the law requires one of three judgments in what is called the precautionary principle:

“The first is cautious progress until findings of innocence are made; the second is ordinary progress until findings of guilt are made; and the last is the ‘no-go’ approach until intensive research has been conducted into such a process. In the case where human lives are at stake, it is my submission that this last route should be followed and lion slaughtering should stop immediately.”

It is clear these principles are not being followed in the lion bone trade. The Chinese wildlife ban could be the death knell of the lion bone industry – not a moment too soon.