(Note: this is from the 1990 version the action plan
Click here for the 2004 version of the Canid Action Plan)

International Trade in CITES Listed Canids

(from Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, and Dogs,
the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group's 1990 Action Plan)

Introduction

For centuries, canids have been treated both as pests and as products. As pests, they are blamed for destroying poultry, livestock and valuable wildlife (Chapter 11), and infecting man and his animals with disease (Chapter 12). As products, canids are killed and their flesh and fur used for a variety of purposes (Table 1). Of the 34 species of wild canid, at least 20 are killed by man for their fur.

The international trade in canid fur can be divided into two categories furs which are farmed and furs which are derived from trapping or shooting wild canids. Both methods of acquiring pelts for market are hotly debated. On the one hand, many people oppose what they understand of the conditions in which farmed animals are bred; on the other hand, many oppose the methods of capture used in the killing of wild animals (Nilsson 1980). Yet, as long as a market for these pelts exists, canids will be killed for their pelts. Although we recognize the need for a scientific discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of fur production, this topic lies outside the confines of this discussion.

Our focus in this chapter will be an examination of the effect of the international fur trade on the conservation of wild canids. We begin with a brief evaluation of the extent of fur fanning and its potential effects on wild canids. This is followed by a discussion of the extent of trapping of wild furs in North America, the continent for which the best data are available.

The bulk of this chapter is devoted to an examination of data generated by reports collected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The history, structure, and implementation of CITES are discussed in detail by Bräutigam (1989). Those countries which are Parties to CITES are required to provide information on the importation and exportation of CITES listed species (Article VIII, paragraph 7). A brief description of the Convention is presented below.

Fur Farming and Conservation

The trade in canid fur is both national and international; countries in every continent are both producers and consumers of canid-derived fur products. Much of this trade involves the farming of once wild species-thc arctic fox and the raccoon dog are intensively farmed in many countries (Table 2). In fact, the majority of canid furs used in commerce come from farmed animals. Finland is the main exporting producer of farmed foxes. Poland is also a producer, and the product is an important item in the country's economy. East Asian countries (such as South Korea) have dabbled, but the figures speak for themselves. Of the total blue fox figure of 3.3 million (1988/1989), 2.6 million were produced in Scandinavia and 500,000 in Poland.

Table 1. Use of canids in trade (data from various sources)

Although the practice of fur farming is intensely debated (Hochswender 1989), fur farming in and of itself poses little direct threat to wild canids. The indirect effects of fur fanning on wild furbearer populations are ambiguous. On the one hand, the availability of cheaply produced, farmed furs of high quality should reduce the price (and hence trapping pressures) of wild-living conspecifics; on the other hand, increases in fur fanning might prime the pump of public demand. This may have two separate effects. In some cases, the production of farmed fur may be insufficient to meet demand, thus putting pressure on wild populations. A second result may be that wild-caught pelts may increase in value just because they are different from their more common farmed brethren. One of the more bizarre manifestations of recent movements which stress "natural" living is that wild-caught furs have increased appeal (Bräutigam pers. comm.).

Patterns of trapping for two North American canids illustrate these points. In the 1920s, arctic fox skins accounted for 37% of the trade in wild-caught foxes. By the 1980s, the arctic fox accounted for only a tiny proportion of foxes trapped in North America (3%). This change in relative levels of fox trapping also is reflected in the absolute numbers of arctic fox trapped. Arctic fox harvests have declined from their 1930s peak of 69,000 pelts per year to 22,000 in the early 1980s. This decline is correlated with a large increase in farming of the arctic fox (Obbard et al. 1987). It would appear that fur fanning has, to a great extent, replaced the trapping of arctic foxes.

A completely contradictory pattern can be seen if we examine the data on trapping and farming of red fox. In the 1930s, approximately 240,000 red fox pelts were harvested annually; by the 1980s, the red fox "bag" had increased to well over 500,000 animals per annum (Obbard et al. 1987). While the advent of widespread fur fanning appears to have reduced demand for wild arctic fox, the wild red fox has not been so lucky.

Finally, with an increasing demand for fur products in general (Obbard et al. 1987), it can only be a matter of time before people become bored with the common and create a demand for the rare: people may prefer the exotic, or merely that harvested in the wild. The forces that generate markets for fur, wild-caught or farmed, are as complex as the human mind. Fashion is truly unpredictable. Although the cost of rare furs may initially be prohibitive for all but a wealthy few, it is just these wealthy few who set the fashions and generate the demand for "luxury" goods. An oft-quoted example of such an effect is the increased demand for leopard skins in the early 1960s which occurred after the American president's wife, Mrs. Kennedy, was seen wearing a leopard coal Perhaps this is a spurious correlation, but given the power individuals can wield over fashion, one suspects it is not.

Trapping and Conservation

Wild canids are trapped and killed, and in places trapped and killed heavily, for their pelts. Many of the species killed for their fur are in no danger of extinction. The red fox, grey fox, coyote, and arctic fox are all widespread and abundant. Although total figures of trapping "bags" are not published, some idea of the extent of trapping can be seen by examining the data in Table 3. In all of North America, just under 1.5 million wild canids were killed for their pelts in the 1982/1983 trapping season. These rates of harvest appear not to threaten wild populations (papers in Novak et al. 1987). The great majority of these pelts were harvested from species that are common throughout their ranges (foxes, coyotes). In fact, despite these levels of harvesting, the coyote has shown a range expansion in the last decade.

Table 2. Trade in farmed and wild canid fur (data from the International Fur Trade Federation)

*Excludes internal consumption in Soviet Union

The grey wolf, although common in Canada, Alaska, and the Soviet Union is threatened or endangered elsewhere in the world. This species accounts for less than one half of one percent of the wild canid pelts harvested in North America, both in absolute numbers and in terms of income gained from sales of the pelts. There is little doubt that harvests of grey wolves in Canada, the Soviet Union, and Alaska pose little threat to those populations; the effects of a legal trade on other less stable populations, however, are not well understood.

Table 3. Trade and value of trade in wild-caught canids in North America 1982-1983.

Data from Shieff and Baker 1987. Prices have risen since 1983, e.g. a grey wolf skin now has a value of $100-300 in Canada (Mech pers. comm.)

CITES Trade in Canids

When the international trade in animal products threatens a species' survival, or the survival of a geographical population of a species, the species is listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES provides a mechanism for either regulating, or in the case of those species threatened with extinction, prohibiting international trade. The three Appendices to the treaty, also known as species lists, are amended periodically by the signatory Parties in response to changes in the conservation status of a species or of one of its populations. The level of protection afforded to a species is a function of the Appendix on which it is listed. Specifically, the treaty provides for the following species to be included in each of the three Appendices:

Appendix I. All species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade authorized only in exceptional circumstances.

Appendix II. (a) All species which may become threatened with extinction unless strict regulation is enforced; (b) other species which must be subject to regulation so that trade in endangered or potentially endangered species can be brought under control.

Appendix III. All species which any Party to CITES identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the cooperation of other Parties in the control of trade.

There are strict guidelines established to govern the addition or deletion of a species from one of the appendices, or the transfer of a species between appendices. These rules, known as the Berne criteria, are discussed in full in Bräutigam (1989). An example of the rules is the requirements for inclusion in Appendix 1: a species must be threatened with extinction; the species should be threatened, or potentially threatened, by international trade; and there must be evidence to prove these facts.

Trade in an Appendix I or II CITES listed species may only occur if a party's Scientific Authority finds that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in question. If such a non-detrimental" finding is made, a Party's Management Authority may authorize trade. Such a "non-detrimental" finding should provide a measure of scientific rigour to CITES classifications and operation. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, the "non-detrimental" finding requirement is not applied as rigourously as it should be (Bräutigam, pers. comm.).

Many species which are threatened, but are not traded, are not listed in CITES. CITES, as its name states, deals only with trade and not with other causes of extinction, although factors such as habitat loss, ecology, and reproductive biology are, of course, taken into account when trying to determine the levels of trade a species can sustain. Furthermore, not all species listed on Appendix II are threatened by trade; CITES may include on its appendices common species that the Parties deem to be traded at a sufficient level to warrant monitoring and a degree of regulation (Bräutigam 1989).

Although CITES does provide a mechanism by which extremely rare, but not immediately threatened, species may be included in Appendix I (Resolution Conf. 2.19), many species which are threatened are not, and probably should not be included in the species lists. Only three threatened canid species fall into this category: the African wild dog; the Simien jackal; and the island grey fox.

In theory, all CITES trade should be reported by both exporting and importing countries; hence, when exports and imports are compared, the totals in these categories should match. They rarely do. Several problems exist, the most basic being that CITES statistics make it virtually impossible to give definitive assessments as to the level of trade in any given species from any given country (Bräutigam pers. comm.). These difficulties are discussed in Broad et al. (1987) and include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Not all countries are Party to CITES.
2. The accuracy and frequency of Annual Reports, and the effectiveness of implementation of CITES, varies from country to country.
3. Products exported in one year may arrive in the importing country in the next year.
4. Commodities are identified differently by importing and exporting countries (e.g. kg of skins vs. pelt or plate numbers).
5. CITES deals only with the effect of international trade in threatened species. Data on domestic trade of endangered or threatened species do not need to be provided by those nations which are Party to CITES.
6. Illegal trade is not reported through CITES.

The data we present cover all available CITES information from 1980 to 1986. These data are derived from the Annual Reports of Parties to the Convention and were supplied by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Our analyses complement a review recently released by Broad et al. (1988) of significant trade in the culpeo and the grey zorro from 1980-1985. Our analyses of the data, however, differ in one significant way from that of Broad et al. 1988. if skins have been transformed into saleable products before export, the number of skins used is not reported. Categories such as "garments," "plates" (a panel of skins sewn together), or "kilos of skins scraps" may represent two or two hundred skins. Broad et al. 1988 chose to exclude these items except in "exceptional circumstances." Their estimates are therefore, minimum estimates.

Table 4. Conversion Factors for CITES-listed trade other than unworked skins.

In all species studied, the great majority of pelts appear to be traded as skins. Yet, to be conservative in our analyses, our figures include many categories of worked products. The conversions we used to estimate the number of skins in a garment, plate or kilo of "scraps" are listed in Table 4. Our figures are based on the size of the animal in question. Although arbitrary, they are a rough attempt to account for the trade in worked products.

When citing figures on exports, where known, we have listed the country of origin. In some cases, the country of origin may not be listed in the CITES summary data; such errors are most apparent when a country reports exports of a species that is not found within its borders.

CITES Trade in Grey Wolves

In terms of monitoring trade, wolves pose a particularly difficult problem. While common in some countries, even abundant to the point of being a pest, wolves are becoming extinct in most parts of the world (see Chapter 6). Because each sub-population appears to face a separate threat, those wolf populations in danger of extinction are placed on Appendix I. Those which are not in danger of immediate extinction, including those which are growing and healthy, are placed on Appendix II so that trade can be monitored and regulated if need be.

In any particular year, exports and imports of wolf skins are rather unequal; however, there is no statistically significant difference in the numbers of skins reported for export and import in the years studied (paired student's t-test, P<0.30). Net trade in wolf skins has hovered around 6,000-7,000 skins per annum since 1981. In 1983 to 1985, exports (and to a lesser extent imports) appeared to show a sharp increase. This increase, however, does not appear to have been sustained. Further data from 1987 and 1988 may clarify this pattern.

Various wolf products appear to be exported. All parts of the body, ranging from feet to teeth, claws to flesh, are exported for one purpose or another. The great majority of wolf exports, however, are skins exported in an unfinished form (Figure 1). Most of these come from countries or regions which support relatively healthy wolf population (Figure 2): Canada, the Soviet Union, Mongolia, China, and the United States. The export of-skins from Korea and Albania may present problems as the status of wolf populations in these countries is unknown. These may represent re-export of skins originating in the Soviet Union (Bräutigam, pers comm.). Several countries which have recorded significant exports of wolf skins under Appendix II (Fig. 2) have no native wolf populations, or a population insufficient to produce the exports. These countries are: Sweden, Great Britain, El Salvador, the Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, and Denmark. We must assume that these exports are the result of trans-shipment or re-export. Since 1984, all trade within the EEC is considered "internal," hence exports from Denmark or the Federal Republic of Germany, for instance, are almost definitely trans-shipments or re-exports which were imported through another EEC country.

Wolf skins are imported by a variety of countries. However, most of the skins find their way to the United States and Great Britain (Fig. 3). Nine other countries imported more than 1,000 wolf skins in the period 1980-1986, while a further three countries recorded imports of more than 100 skins in that period.

At present levels, the trade in wolf skins is sustainable if all the wolf skins traded originated in those countries with healthy wolf populations. However, with many thousands of wolf skins traded annually, trade may present a hazard to a great majority of wolf populations. Most wolf populations number in the hundreds, and many support less than one hundred individuals. Fortunately, we have no evidence that wolf skins from these populations are entering the market place.

CITES Trade in Grey Zorros

There is a large international trade in the grey zorro (Fig. 2). Broad et al. (I 988) believe that the species can support this level of trade. To support the contention that the species can withstand considerable harvest, Broad et al. (1988) cite population densities from southern Chile of 1.3 to 2.5 individuals per km² (Duran et al. 1985). These estimates are suspect (Jaksic pers. comm.). Various methodological errors were made in collecting data for this survey. For example, samples were made with spotlights on roads, then extrapolated to roadless areas. The species is known to concentrate along roads to scavenge for road kills (Jaksic pers. comm.). The study, funded by a Magallanes hunters association, resulted in the ban on hunting of D. griseus being lifted and licenses being issued to hunt. Hunting became uneconomical (due to scarcity) after a very small proportion of estimated populations were removed, suggesting an overestimate of standing densities (Jaksic pers. comm.).

Examining the CITES data through 1985, trade in grey zorros appeared to be declining (Fig. 4). However, trade levels increased again in 1986 with imports reported exceeding 1983 levels. Although this variation in trade, in and of itself, says little about the status of the grey zorro, the rapid fluctuations in trade levels require explanation. One explanation may be that a decline in demand reduced demand in 1984-1985. Two factors suggest this did not occur. The first is that trade in other species of wild fox-like animals increased in this period (Obbard et al. 1987); in the United States, the fur trade has shown remarkable growth in the late 1980s (Hochswender 1989). A second, purely speculative explanation is that over-harvesting in the early 1980s led to a precipitous population decline and, therefore, to smaller harvests. If this were the case, the increased harvest in 1986 would indicate either some population recovery or more effective methods of harvest.

The levels of trade in grey zorro are the highest for any CITES-listed canid. Most of these exports go to the Federal Republic of Germany (Fig. 3) and are exported from Argentina (Fig. 2) as unworked skins and garments (Fig. 1). A small proportion of the trade originates in Chile, despite hunting being illegal there.

CITES Trade in Culpeo

The international trade in the culpeo is small when compared to that of the closely related grey zorro. Annual exports peaked in the early 1980s at 1,000 skins and have declined to a consistent export of only a few hundred skins (Fig. 4). Despite a wide-ranging distribution, from Ecuador to Patagonia, in the seven years covered in this study, the vast majority of the exports recorded originated in Argentina (Fig. 2). The second largest reported exporter of culpeo skins is the Federal Republic of Germany, a country in which the culpeo does not occur. We must assume that these reports represent re-exports of skins originating in South America. That the Federal Republic of Germany is also the largest importer of culpeo skins (Fig. 3) suggests that this is a reasonable assumption.

CITES Trade in Other Species

Seven other species of canids are listed under CITES. Two species, the red wolf and the bush dog, are listed on Appendix I. The dhole, Blanford's fox, the maned wolf, Azara's zorro, and the fennec are listed on Appendix II. Azara's zorro was added to Appendix II in 1987, hence no data are yet available on trade in this species.

During the period surveyed, no trade was recorded for the red wolf, a fact which is not surprising given that under 100 animals are known to exist.

From 1980 to 1986, total trade in the bush dog was 14 animals. The trade in the bush dog is limited to live specimens, presumably brought to zoos to establish populations for captive breeding. Captive breeding programmes should be encouraged, although earlier efforts have been largely unsuccessful (see Chapter 10). Trade in Blanford's fox varies widely from year to year (Fig. 5). In fact, no trade was recorded for 1983, 1985, or 1986, despite relatively high levels of trade in 1984 (estimated at 519 skins). The great majority of skins were exported from Canada, a country well outside the range of the Blanford's fox. In fact, the only country which exported skins and may contain a population of Blanford's fox is Afghanistan -14 skins were exported in two shipments of seven, one in 1980, one in 1982.

In 1983, 1,153 fennec skins were exported from the United States to the Federal Republic of Germany. The source of these skins is unknown, but certainly was not the United States, a country lacking fennecs. Other than this one record, trade in the fennec is limited to live specimens traded, we assume, for zoo specimens. In the seven years surveyed, approximately half of the 40 specimens traded were bred in captivity.

Argentina, a country halfway around the world from the nearest wild dhole, exported 86 dhole skin "garments" to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1983. This transaction dominates the trade in dholes. Other than this single transaction, the trade in dholes is limited to imports and exports of live specimens. Approximately 30 animals have been recorded crossing international borders, 6 of which were captive bred specimens.

Recent efforts to breed maned wolves in captivity account for the entire trade in these animals. The level of trade is somewhat difficult to determine with any accuracy-53 animals were reported as "imports," but only 17 animals were recorded as "exports." Nonetheless, even using the import figures as a maximum estimate, the trade in these animals appears to be small and limited to live specimens.

CITES Listed Trade-Plans for Action

Data reported to CITES may be imperfect, but they are generally the best data we have on the international trade in a wide variety of wildlife taxa. Unlike most customs data, CITES reports usually list trade by species If reasonable scientific data exist that trade may endanger a plant or animal species there is a strong argument in favour of placing that animal on one of the CITES Appendices. The data collected by CITES also allow for review and reconsideration of these listings.

The role of CITES, however, is not to offer protection to all species, but only those affected or potentially affected by trade. As Mrosovsky (1988) clearly argues, placing a species in a CITES Appendix should not be a symbolic gesture for conservation, but a considered act. Equally so, when data collected by CITES suggests that trade is no longer a threat, de-listing should be considered if the integrity of CITES is to be maintained. A balance must be struck so that those species requiring protection are listed on an Appendix, while those not requiring protection are removed from a list. Of course, removal must only be made when it can be shown that trade in a species does not pose even a potential conservation problem.

Given the information summarized above, we believe the following actions should be taken.

Red wolf

Despite being pulled back from the edge of extinction, the red wolf remains the rarest and most endangered of the world's canid species. So few animals exist that trade is all but impossible in this species. Nonetheless, given that any trade could push it to extinction, we believe that the red wolf should remain on Appendix I for the foreseeable future.

Bush dog

The CITES data reviewed offer little evidence that there is significant trade in the bush dog or that trade is a threat to this animal's survival. Despite our total ignorance of population levels of the bush dog (see Chapter 5), present levels of trade in no way endanger the bush dog. As no commercial use was recorded for the bush dog, its status should be reviewed with a view towards removing the species from CITES. The IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, in conjunction with range states, hopes to implement such a review and prepare a draft proposal and supporting statement to be submitted to the CITES Secretariat.

Grey wolf

Trade in wolf skins suffers from a two-tiered system with the potential for trade in both legal and illegal skins. At the moment, few skins appear to be traded from countries with endangered wolf populations. However, given the ease with which skins can be trans-shipped, a further increase in the demand for wolf skins could lead to rapid extinction of remnant populations throughout the world. Although we do not recommend a change in the present classification of wolves, we do caution that the situation must be monitored. Wolves are harvested for fur in the northern countries where their populations are intact (i.e. Canada, the Soviet Union, and Alaska), not in areas where populations are precarious (e.g. Israel). Any increase in trade should, therefore, increase the take in the main harvesting countries. It is deliberate persecution, habitat destruction, lack of prey, and misunderstanding that are more likely to endanger wolves elsewhere.

Grey zorro

In their review of the trade in the grey zorro Broad et al. (1988) concluded that, having analyzed CITES data for 1980-1985, trade in this species, originating in Argentina, can be supported on a sustainable basis "at a considerable level." The implication of their conclusions is that present levels of trade are sustainable. For several reasons, we question this conclusion.

Data collected on population densities are suspect; certainly the future of this species should not be based on estimates that some experts consider inaccurate. The lack of data on the status and distribution of the grey zorro, combined with the large number of skins traded annually, is disturbing. Perhaps trade can be sustained at 100,000 pelts per year. Perhaps the population can only support 10,000 or 1,000 pelts per year. We cannot tell. If trade at the present level is a threat to populations it could force the grey zorro to extinction rapidly. Given these uncertainties, and until needed surveys are completed, we suggest that trade be limited to an annual off-take of 10,000 pelts harvested in Argentina, the only country in which hunting of the zorro is legal. Extensive population surveys must be conducted in both Chile and Argentina. These surveys should be conducted by independent bodies not likely to profit from the trade in zorro skins. Quotas should be set only after independent surveys and population estimates are made.

Culpeo

Broad et al. (1988) concluded that present levels of trade do not endanger the culpeo: we concur. The concentration of trade in Argentina may, perhaps, present problems for local populations of the culpeo if trade levels were to increase sharply. As with the grey zorro, we know little about the distribution and abundance of the culpeo in Argentina. However, population estimates of 60,000 individuals in Santa Cruz province, 200,000 for Patagonia, and 30,000 for Chubut province (F.A.C.I.F. 1987), can certainly support the present level of trade. Independent surveys of culpeo, however, should be made so that levels of harvesting can be set at scientifically established levels.

Blanford's fox, Fennec, and Dhole

The status of trade in these three species follows a similar pattern. Virtually no trade was recorded with the exception of a single record for each of the three species. In each case, this transaction involved pelts which were exported by countries outside the species' range. A review of the species concerned should be initiated to determine the origin the pelts in these "exceptional" trades. Until the records are examined, monitoring of these species should continue. If, and only if, these few transactions can be explained, and if no further international market for these species can be found, we recommend that the Blanford's fox, fennec fox, and dhole be removed from Appendix II.

Maned wolf

No evidence exists that the maned wolf is endangered by international trade. Our correspondents suggest that the species is hunted, but the fur is not highly valued for commercial purposes and the pelt is unusable. We have no doubt the species is vulnerable. But there is no evidence that the species is endangered by international trade. The status of the maned wolf should be reviewed with a view towards removing the species from CITES. The IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, in conjunction with range states, hopes to implement such a review and prepare a draft proposal and supporting statement to be submitted to the CITES Secretariat.

© 1990 International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources