Clifford Warwick
Catrina Steedman
Phillip Arena
Rachel Grant- 1Emergent Disease Foundation, London, United Kingdom
- 2Education Department, Murdoch University, Mandurah, WA, Australia
- 3School of Applied and Health Sciences, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom
The wildlife fashion industry involves diverse products that include animal skin, feathers, fur, and curios as part of various apparel, footwear, and many other accessories. Positive messaging by advocates of the wildlife fashion industry frequently promotes products as sustainably sourced and beneficial for species conservation. To assess potential veracity of conservation claims by the wildlife fashion industry we conducted a rapid evidence assessment, brief survey, and novelty stress-test regarding data used by key regulatory sectors concerning four example species within the sector (Australian saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), reticulated pythons (Malayopython reticulatus), Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus), and South African ostriches (Struthio camelus australis)). We collated information via online literature searches, requests to government agencies, and the CITES Secretariat. No relevant data were provided by any government agency nor by CITES to support claims that the wildlife fashion industry benefits conservation of the four target species. We conclude that reliance on the commercial sector for objective and impartial data or other input appears imprudent, and that both the nature and source of information used for policy-making requires transparency and reform. We recommend wider use of the precautionary principle, which should be supported with high-level monitoring and enforcement, as well as improved information and education.
Introduction
The wildlife fashion industry involves diverse products that include animal skin, feathers, fur, and curios as part of various apparel, footwear, and many other accessories (Barends-Jones and Pienaar, 2020; Webb, 2020; Wells et al., 2021; CITES Secretariat, 2022; Carranza et al., 2023; Warwick et al., 2023). The scale of the global market across wildlife (wild-caught and captive-bred - ranched or farmed (CITES Secretariat & UNEP-WCMC, 2022)) sourced fashion products is largely unknown (Green et al., 2023), although annually it may involve hundreds of millions of animals and may be worth $2.5 bn.
Positive messaging by advocates of the wildlife fashion industry frequently claim or promote products as resulting from: (1) husbandry conditions consistent with good animal welfare practices, for example, health and wellbeing of animals is assured (Kasterine et al., 2012; Doak, 2023; Warwick et al., 2023; Clancy and Fukuda, 2024); (2) sustainable sourcing, for example, natural populations are subject to sustainable utilization and not overexploited or not at risk of population declines (Hutton and Webb, 2002; Lyons and Natusch, 2014; Natusch et al., 2016; Khadiejah et al., 2019; Wahab et al., 2020; Webb, 2020; Natusch et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2021; CITES Secretariat, 2022; Marsh et al., 2022; Clancy and Fukuda, 2024); (3) positive or essential benefits for species conservation, for example, capturing or breeding animals for products is beneficial and necessary for conservation (Roe et al., 2020; Webb, 2020; Natusch et al., 2021; CITES Secretariat, 2022; Clancy and Fukuda, 2024); and (4) local socio-economic benefits, for example, capturing or breeding animals is beneficial and necessary for local exploiters and communities (CITES Secretariat, 2022; Hermesch and Isberg, 2022; Fabiano et al., 2023).
Previous studies of the wildlife fashion industry have investigated strengths or weaknesses of certain claims by the sector and identified numerous major problems concerning greenwashing, animal welfare-washing, and other inconsistencies (Wells et al., 2021; Green et al., 2023; Hakansson and Bailey-Smith, 2023). Many scientific reports provide substantial evidence of monitoring and control failures and unnecessary harm in all sectors of wildlife trade, and reject trade advocate-based assertions, notably regarding: (1) monitoring systems across trade hubs (Marshall et al., 2020; Toland et al., 2020; Green et al., 2023); (2) species and ecological conservation or protection (Altherr and Lameter, 2020; Macdonald et al., 2021; Hughes et al., 2023); and (3) criminality (Hitchens and Blakeslee, 2020; Romero-Vidal et al., 2020; Andersson et al., 2021). Further reports examine associated negative implications and outcomes regarding: animal welfare (Ashley et al., 2014; D’Cruze et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2025); zoonoses, public health, and safety (Warwick et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2020; Lawler et al., 2021); agricultural animal health (Johnson et al., 2020; Warwick, 2020; Lawler et al., 2021); socio-economics (Lawler et al., 2021; Liew et al., 2021; Green et al., 2023); and combined animal, human, and environment issues known as one health (Buttke et al., 2015; García Pinillos, 2021; Stephen et al., 2023).
Captive-breeding or farming of wildlife has not been proven to eliminate pressure across use of wild populations (Meeks et al., 2024; Morton et al., 2024; Auliya et al., 2025). Moreover, whilst it can be argued that captive-breeding may at least reduce harvest (collection, storage and killing), it can also be counterargued that ready availability of skin products generates harvest demand that would otherwise not exist, and that whilst wildlife farming can reduce impacts on natural populations, it continues to be a significant strain, and fails to offer protection (Meeks et al., 2024).
This report considers four species in the wildlife fashion industry and stress-tests key regulatory agencies to provide scientific evidence to verify claims that use of animals (whether wild-caught or captive-bred) is both beneficial and necessary for the survival of those targeted species in the wild. We considered it reasonable that formal regulatory agencies should be capable of substantiating their permissive positions on trade using objective and impartial evidence, free from potential capture by vested interest entities. Therefore, we surveyed relevant government departments as well as the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In addition to presenting our findings, we also offer perspective regarding current approaches to both reliability of data utilization and to policy outcomes relating to the wildlife fashion industry. Ethical, moral, justice, and criminological factors were not considered for this analysis. However, those factors may have a role in determining certain wildlife trade policies.
Methods
We performed a rapid evidence assessment and survey by requesting data from governmental departments with direct responsibility for the four target species involved in production of wildlife fashion goods in relevant countries and a cohort of states involved in trade of the items (Australia [Northern Territory and Queensland], Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam). Also, the governments of the 15 countries have primary determination as to the harvest of species in their territories, which has major conservation relevance. Countries and states, whether acting independently or in concert with others, would automatically be captured by the general survey. The 15 countries and states were emailed with the 5 survey questions (Appendix 1) using all contacts available in any relevant government departments. Nine specific survey questions (Appendix 2) were issued to the CITES Secretariat. Governmental agencies and CITES may receive different information inputs from multiple non-governmental stakeholders (e.g., commercial, conservation, animal welfare) (Warwick and Steedman, 2021a). For example, Fauna & Flora International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce, and World Wide Fund for Nature, among others, are established non-governmental advisors to both governments and CITES (Fauna & Flora, 2025; IFAW, 2025; IUCN, 2025; TRAFFIC, 2025; World Wildlife Fund, 2025). Accordingly, both governmental agencies and CITES were surveyed for comprehensiveness.
Timeframes for responses were established in accordance with accepted governmental and CITES protocols; i.e., government departments and CITES were invited to respond in accordance with the response timeframes indicated in their own formal procedures. Reminders were subsequently issued, and opportunities notified for open extensions were provided. After six weeks, without responses (at least twice the period required within governmental and CITES indicated timeframes) the survey was closed.
In particular, we challenged these key regulatory agencies to provide evidential bases (data from independent, non-trade or non-trade advocate sources) held on file that would support their permissive positions regarding commercial use of wildlife for the fashion industry. We requested such data covering five consecutive years, which we considered to be a reasonable period for analytical purposes. Thus, our study directly aimed to provide a strong stress-test by placing the onus on relevant bodies to support their positions with objective and impartial evidence. Trade-generated reports were not invited nor considered suitable as primary data because such materials derive from vested-interest and advocacy parties, which raises important questions regarding potential issues of inherent impartiality and information biases (Warwick and Steedman, 2021a).
The four target species namely, Australian saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), reticulated pythons (Malayopython reticulatus), Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus), and South African ostriches (Struthio camelus australis) were selected primarily due to: (1) their frequent presence in the skin and fur products trade (Saalfeld et al., 2016; Natusch et al., 2017; Barends-Jones and Pienaar, 2020; Hierink et al., 2020; Maulany et al., 2021; Doak, 2023; VKM et al., 2023); (2) time-budget limitations; and (3) funder interest in those species. Saltwater crocodiles, reticulated pythons, and Burmese pythons are reported as being wild-caught, captive-bred, farmed, or ranched for their skins (Saalfeld et al., 2016; Natusch et al., 2017; CITES Secretariat, 2022; CITES Secretariat & UNEP-WCMC, 2022; VKM et al., 2023), and South African ostriches are farmed for their feathers and skin (Barends-Jones and Pienaar, 2020; Doak, 2023; Kekana et al., 2023). All four species are also used for meat (Barends-Jones and Pienaar, 2020; Webb, 2020; CITES Secretariat, 2022), as well as for exotic pets, zoos, and other purposes (De Vosjoli and Klingenberg, 2001; Barker et al., 2012; Herzog, 2014; Lidz, 2015).
Results
Of the 15 government departments contacted, only three responses with any data were received (Queensland, Australia, the Philippines and Singapore). One government agency (Queensland) provided limited data in response to Appendix 1 survey questions. The Singapore Government (National Parks Board) stated that it does not harvest reticulated pythons (Malayopython reticulatus) from the wild, nor does it have any captive-breeding facilities for this species. The Philippines Government stated that they had three CITES-registered farms (overseen by the relevant government department) exporting raw skins of C. porosus to Singapore, and that there were five other government registered farms. It also stated that there were no (post-CITES accession) records of illegal trade in crocodile skins, meat, or other products originating from the Philippines. The Philippines Wildlife Resources Division stated that they possessed no registered facility in the country that was engaged in the breeding of reticulated pythons (M. reticulatus) to produce skins for trade. One acknowledgement of receipt of questionnaire without data was provided by the CITES Secretariat in response to survey questions (Appendix 2).
For background, Appendix 3 and Appendix-Figure 1 provide supplementary general summary information based on online research-based publications regarding ecological, biological, and trade aspects of the four target species utilized in the wildlife fashion industry during five years over the period 2017-2022. This information may act as a general guide to volumes and other aspects of trade in the four target species.
Discussion
Government & CITES held data
Other than the highly limited responses from Queensland, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines governments, the absence of any data or other information being provided by governments or CITES is notable. Where parties hold policies acknowledging that species populations are stable or sustainable, and thus safe to exploit, those entities should also meet the obligation to substantiate such claims (Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021a). Rationally, claims that any species population is stable should also be based on a preponderance of entirely verifiable, independent, impartial, objective, scientific data demonstrably verifying such claims. In our view, unless such evidence is extant, both rationally and ethically, no claims of sustainability or permissions for exploitation should be issued.
The low number of responses from governmental agencies as well as the null response from CITES were disappointing. However, this information deficiency may provide an important insight into operational laxities regarding acquisition of evidence, which may add weight to recent analysis concluding that government and CITES permissive policies lack solid scientific bases (Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021b; Marshall et al., 2025). Arguably, reasonable speculation to explain the poor responses may include a lack of qualifying information held on file by those entities or a reluctance or lack of interest to share information. In any event, whether deliberate or incidental, such inaction may highlight deficient institutional transparency, and is not encouraging with respect to research or messaging purposes.
Government institutions globally possess trade directives, policies, and laws that accommodate wildlife commercialization (Zimmerman, 2003; Rosen and Smith, 2010; Wiersema, 2017; Duffy, 2022; Ribeiro et al., 2022), which plainly constitutes an inherent advocacy bias towards exploitation. Governmental positions and policies on all aspects of wildlife trade are largely based on information from trade monitoring organizations, such as CITES (Warwick and Steedman, 2021a). Governments and CITES share common pro-wildlife trade remits supported by numerous trade advocates (Booth et al., 2021; Natusch et al., 2021; Challender et al., 2022). This protocol trajectory favors exploitative rather than objective information sources.
Reliability of any data purporting sustainability or benefits for wildlife is also compromised by important concerns regarding the pooling of information from different uses, such as international trade and local subsistence markets (Hinsley et al., 2023), as well as the intentional mislabeling of wild-caught animals as being captive-bred in wildlife trade and farming operations (D’Cruze et al., 2020; Hinsley et al., 2023; Meeks et al., 2024; Auliya et al., 2025). In addition, genuine close monitoring and control for unauthorized exploitation is frequently weak (Warwick, 2014; Toland et al., 2020). In our view, the current lack of onus on commerce to justify its practices arguably constitutes policy capture by trade vested interests and their advocates. Assigning value to the knowledge of parties diversly affected or interested in wildlife use, for example, local community experiences, embraces the concept of avoiding underrepresentation and epistemic injustice (Baker and Constant, 2020; Sandré et al., 2024). Local knowledge can provide important insights into emerging biodiversity declines with relevance to both general and specific species conservation issues (Warwick, 2014; Baker and Constant, 2020; Sandré et al., 2024). Accordingly, perceptions of relevant ‘stakeholder’ interests may currently be too narrow and overly focused on non-local commercial beneficiaries. In our view, the activities of communities that consume wildlife for entirely localized purposes should not be conflated with, for example, the activities of parties that utilize such communities for extra-regional or international trade, because doing so may in particular constitute incentivization within such communities towards excessive biodiversity use.
Perspectives have been presented that balance arguments regarding the morality of anthropogenic population or species extinctions, and conclude that in most examples such events are ‘bad’ (Wienhues et al., 2023). An entirely (quasi-nihilistic) utilitarian view might casually justify current value to human-kind over natural biodiversity or a ‘use it and lose it’ approach. However, we would counter argue that present understanding of ecological dynamism and potential or likely meta-effects of species degradation warrants a precautionary principle equivalent to primum non nocere – first do no harm, as is justified in other human managed situations. Also, current biodiversity conservation regulations (key to this article) hold imbedded ethical paradigms requiring extinction-avoidance principles, which infers recognition of the immorality of total utilitarianism.
A recently suggested solution to such capture is to reorganize consultation priorities into a three-tier protocol in which: (1) independent scientists constitute primary advisors; (2) non-governmental organizations with interests in animal welfare, conservation, and public health constitute secondary advisors; and (3) trade interests constitute tertiary advisors; thus, policy is primarily determined by objective data and opinion (Warwick, 2014; Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021a).
Relevantly, monitoring and controlling protocols, such as CITES, typically adopt a negative-list system, which can function reactively following substantial evidence of harm to species sustainability (Warwick, 2014; Toland et al., 2020). Requests for CITES to recognize commercially-related population harm involves onerous burdens on petitioners, and is systematically weighted in favor of industry (Warwick, 2014; Toland et al., 2020), and considerable resistance from trade vested interests is also encountered (Warwick, 2014; Toland et al., 2020).
Can any benefits to species conservation be attributed to trade?
Whilst a lack of fuller information can obscure possible benefits to species conservation from the wildlife fashion industry, any such conclusion is, in our view, at present purely hypothetical. This already concerning situation is further negatively compounded when addressed with certain searching questions. For example:
1. If/where historical over-harvesting of animals for skin or feathers had led to significant population declines, is it possible that ceasing such trade alone would enable species to recover? If this scenario is correct, then the argument that trade incentivizes protection or actually protects species is redundant, because a future absence of commerce will also likely allow species to recover.
2. If/where captive-bred production has taken pressure off wild-caught sources or genuinely aids conservation, then is this a man-made circular situation in which sustainability implies satisfying a demand that has been self-created? If this scenario is correct then the industry may not be helping species sustainability, but instead merely stabilizing a trade-generated instability in which the absence of such commerce may itself protect species.
In our view, the dearth of reliable data demonstrating either commercial sustainability or benefits for species conservation regarding the four species in this study also reflects a far wider and similar lack of evidence pertaining to wildlife benefitting from trade in general (Hughes et al., 2023). Also, nowadays, consumers are conscious of ethical purchasing, and demand transparency in product sourcing, including for wildlife fashion products (Green et al., 2023); however, consumers may hold ethical-green perspectives but not necessarily always act in concert with them (Carranza et al., 2023). Nevertheless, in our view, claims that products result from self-sustaining or closed-system sources without impact on natural populations may misdescribe or mislead consumers.
Measures to control the wildlife fashion industry
Reasonably, where CITES listed species are involved, the pursuit of enhanced enforcement, rather than reduced quotas or bans, holds potential for improving several issues regarding monitoring as well as species protection (Heid and Márquez-Ramos, 2023). However, in addition to the raft of harms inherent to wildlife trade are also a multitude of weaknesses within trade activities and monitoring systems, including complex harvest geographies, stockpiling of animals, traceability difficulties, illegal and thus covert trade practices, false claims of animals being captive bred, fluctuating price trends on the international markets, and inaccurate CITES export permits (Kasterine et al., 2012; UNCTAD, 2012; 2014). Also, wildlife trade generally involves numerous inevitable negative one-health consequences (Warwick and Steedman, 2021c). Accordingly, most or all wildlife fashion activities can be regarded as warranting improved regulation. Current permissive recommendations would appear to be unsustainable on ethical and other grounds. Similarly, caution may be applied to any apparently remedial proposal issued by pro-wildlife trade sectors. However, certain control models have repeatedly been demonstrated to provide effective controls in respect of reductions or near eliminations of harmful wildlife trade sectors, in particular species-specific bans and positive lists.
Bans
Bans for controlling all major problematic aspects of wildlife trade are favorably reported by many authors (Mermin et al., 2004; Toland et al., 2012; Phelps et al., 2016; Wiersema, 2016; Reino et al., 2017; Stringham and Lockwood, 2018; Cardador et al., 2019; Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021c). Nevertheless, numerous authors criticize bans on wildlife trade, including for the fashion sector, largely due to concerns regarding displacement of trade to unregulated underground markets and presumed counter-productiveness towards species conservation (Santos et al., 2011; Eskew and Carlson, 2020). Frequently, anti-ban arguments emerge from pro-use commentators and, therefore, potentially reflect particular interests. Perhaps a significant confirmation for the overriding value of bans, resides in the fact that such prohibitions are steadfastly imbued in all global, regional, and local legislation to moderate or eradicate harmful human behavior and, significantly, bans remain the top tier adopted to protect wildlife from conservation threats when all other measures fail (e.g., CITES Appendix I species listing). Bans combined with high-level enforcement constitute the primary, gold-standard, method to prevent harm both in general society and in wildlife trade.
Positive lists
Positive lists use the precautionary principle placing burden of proof on trade proponents to demonstrate, with overwhelming objective evidence, that commercialization meets certain qualifying criteria, namely, safety in respect of: (1) animals (welfare is assured); (2) species (conservation is protected); (3) ecologies (indigenous species are not exposed to invasive forms); and (4) public health and safety (no significant risks from zoonotic disease or injury) (Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021b). Positive lists are widely and formally enforced regarding food (sourcing and quality standards), chemicals (household products and pharmaceuticals), vehicle safety (public and private manufacturing), homes and buildings (architectural and construction planning and development), professional service and private citizen validations (licensing of doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, pilots, and regular vehicle drivers) (Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021b). Therefore, positive lists constitute the normal operating measures applied to almost all governance involving human use or interaction with societal products and practices, and no valid rationale has been identified to avoid application to wildlife trade (Toland et al., 2020; Warwick and Steedman, 2021b).
Recommendations
Several complementary approaches should be promptly and conscientiously employed to address significant or major, and multifaceted, problems associated with the wildlife fashion industry. We consider that these recommendations are relevant to each of the target species as well as wider species trade and management issues.
1. Information (and sharing thereof) by governments and policy-makers should be improved and developed and rely primarily on independent, objective, impartial, scientific data and opinion, and not based on or prioritize trade/trade-advocate-related information.
2. Precautionary principles and positive lists should be applied so that no commerce is permitted unless safety for animal welfare, species conservation, ecological protection, public health and safety, and socio-economics is advance proven; further, that wherever objective data are lacking or unclear, or where objective evidence of unnecessary harm exists, including with regards to implications of the one-health paradigm, then assumptions should disfavor commodification or its promotion. Thus, positive lists plus high-level monitoring and enforcement should become the default regulatory framework.
3. Rapid bans on trade plus high-level monitoring and enforcement should remain the gold-standard method for control on identification of manifest threats.
4. Investigative criteria such as provided in Appendix 1 should be comprehensively established to stress-test any claims or protocols advocating prospective or existing utilization of any species. Essentially, claims advocating safe commerce & benefits of wildlife trade should be accountable to the principle of “Prove it or lose it”.
5. Improved education should be developed, for example via mandatory product labelling, with obligations placed on governments and other agencies and policy-makers to inform potential consumers that the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘farmed’ also imply wildlife fashion products includes wild-caught animals.
6. Further independently managed research, e.g., via collaborations with universities and other scientific institutions worldwide, should be conducted regarding exploitative claims and suggested benefits. Such studies should be funded by interested parties, including governments, CITES, other scientific entities, and the trade network, whilst having no input regarding design, analysis, conclusions, recommendations, or other directional roles.
Conclusions
The primary purpose of this rapid evidence assessment was to challenge key regulators to substantiate permissive positions regarding the wildlife fashion industry, using only extant entirely independent and objective data. The lack of data provided by either government agencies or CITES to support claims, positions, and policies advocating benefits to species conservation from the wildlife fashion industry is disappointing and concerning.
Importantly, no level of uncertainty has been established to evaluate permissible trade regarding the four target (and potentially many other) species across borders, nor how scientific or economic uncertainties are considered. For example, species are included in threat categories by IUCN Red List assessments whilst also listed in CITES Appendix II and traded internationally. Accordingly, evidential gaps and deficiencies function presumptively to permit commodification. Determining actual statuses of the target species within natural populations across their entire range is not scientifically feasible and therefore essentially unverifiable, and this situation further causes claims of sustainability to be unproven and unreliable. Further, there appears to be no independent verification regarding claims that the wildlife fashion industry benefits conservation for, at least, the four target species, and it remains possible that these examples could even be experiencing trade-related population declines masked by biased, inadequate, or pooled data.
In our view, any reliance on the commercial sector for data or other input appears highly imprudent, and both the nature and source of information used for policy-making requires urgent and comprehensive reform. Therefore, in our assessment, several measures are required to ameliorate relevant multifactorial problems.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
CW: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. PA: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. RG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This project was funded by Collective Fashion Justice, which requested analysis of the four target species, and had no input regarding design, analysis, conclusions, recommendations, or other directional role in this report.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr Mark Auliya for his assistance, as well as many helpful reviewer comments and suggestions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2025.1719758/full#supplementary-material
Appendix 1 | Questionnaire to governmental agencies. Please add any available information (and sources if possible) for questions 1-5.
Appendix 2 | Questionnaire to CITES Secretariat. Background and specific questions issued to the CITES secretariat regarding the wildlife fashion industry.
Appendix 3 | Summary of ecological, biological, and trade aspects of four species heavily utilized in the wildlife fashion industry during five years over the period 2017-2022 (columns 3 & 4).
Supplementary Figure 1 | Annual numbers of Australian crocodile skins (Crocodylus porosus) (wild-sourced and captive-bred), python skins (Malayopython reticulatus and Python bivittatus) (wild-sourced and captive-bred), and South African ostriches (Struthio camelus australis) (captive-bred), traded internationally between 2017-2022 (Saalfeld et al., 2016; DALRRD, 2023; Caldwell, 2024; CITES, 2024).
References
Altherr S. and Lameter K. (2020). The rush for the rare: reptiles and amphibians in the european pet trade. Animals 10, 2085. doi: 10.3390/ani10112085
Andersson A. A., Tilley H. B., Lau W., Dudgeon D., Bonebrake T. C., and Dingle C. (2021). CITES and beyond: Illuminating 20 years of global, legal wildlife trade. GECCO 26, e01455. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01455
Ashley S., Brown S., Ledford J., Martin J., Nash A. E., Terry A., et al. (2014). Morbidity and mortality of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals at a major exotic companion animal wholesaler. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 17, 308–321. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.918511
Auliya M., Nijman V., Altherr S., Aguilera W. T., Ariano-Sanchéz D., Cantu J. C., et al. (2025). Trafficking of Galápagos iguanas as an example of a global problem: CITES permits, laundering and the role of transit countries in Europe and Africa. Biol. Conserv. 305, 111104. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111104
Baker S. and Constant N. L. (2020). Epistemic justice and the integration of local ecological knowledge for marine conservation: Lessons from the Seychelles. Mar. Policy 117, 103921. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103921
Barends-Jones V. and Pienaar L. (2020). The South African ostrich industry footprint (Elsenburg, South Africa: Western Cape Department of Agriculture).
Barker D. G., Barten S. L., Ehrsam J. P., and Daddono L. (2012). The corrected lengths of two well-known giant pythons and the establishment of a new maximum length record for Burmese pythons, Python bivittatus. Bull. Chic. Herpetol. Soc 47, 1–6.
Booth H., Arias M., Brittain S., Challender D. W. S., Khanyari M., Kuiper T., et al. (2021). Saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and safeguarding nature”: risk-based wildlife trade policy for sustainable development outcomes post-COVID-19. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.639216
Buttke D. E., Decker D. J., and Wild M. A. (2015). The role of one health in wildlife conservation: a challenge and opportunity. J. Wildl. Dis. 51, 1–8. doi: 10.7589/2014-01-004
Caldwell J. (2024). World trade in crocodilian skins 2020-2022. UNEP-WCMC technical report (Cambridge, UK: UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre).
Cardador L., Tella J. L., Anadón J. D., Abellán P., and Carrete M. (2019). The European trade ban on wild birds reduced invasion risks. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12631. doi: 10.1111/conl.12631
Carranza R., Zollo L., Díaz E., and Faraoni M. (2023). Solving the luxury fashion and sustainable development “oxymoron”: A cross-cultural analysis of green luxury consumption enablers and disablers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32, 2399–2419. doi: 10.1002/bse.3255
Challender D. W. S., Brockington D., Hinsley A., Hoffmann M., Kolby J. E., Massé F., et al. (2022). Mischaracterizing wildlife trade and its impacts may mislead policy processes. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12832. doi: 10.1111/conl.12832
CITES (2024). Trade database (Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Available online at: https://trade.cites.org.
CITES Secretariat (2022). World wildlife trade report (Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).
CITES Secretariat & UNEP-WCMC (2022). A guide to using the CITES Trade Database Version 9 (Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora & United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre).
Clancy T. and Fukuda Y. (2024). NT saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) wildlife trade management plan: 2022 monitoring report (Palmerston NT, Australia: Northern Territory Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security).
D’Cruze N., Paterson S., Green J., Megson D., Warwick C., Coulthard E., et al. (2020). Dropping the ball? The welfare of ball pythons traded in the EU and north america. Animals 10, 413. doi: 10.3390/ani10030413
DALRRD (2023). Trends in the agricultural sector 2023 (Pretoria, Republic of South Africa: Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development). Available online at: https://nda.gov.za/images/Branches/Economica%20Development%20Trade%20and%20Marketing/Statistc%20and%20%20Economic%20Analysis/statistical-information/trends-in-the-agricultural-sector-2023.pdf.
De Vosjoli P. and Klingenberg R. (2001). Burmese pythons: plus reticulated pythons and related species (Mount Joy, PA, USA: Fox Chapel Publishing).
Doak C. (2023). Commercial ostrich farming: a critical analysis of South Africa’s flightless animal welfare and well-being legislation (Cape Town, South Africa: Master of Laws, University of Western Cape).
Duffy R. (2022). Crime, security, and illegal wildlife trade: political ecologies of international conservation. Glob. Environ. Polit. 22, 23–44. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00645
Eskew E. A. and Carlson C. J. (2020). Overselling wildlife trade bans will not bolster conservation or pandemic preparedness. Lancet Planet Health 4, e215–e216. doi: 10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30123-6
Fabiano E., Lendelvo S., Mosimane A., and Kosmas S. (2023). “Human–wildlife interaction, rural conflict, and wildlife conservation,” in Conservation, markets & the environment in southern and eastern africa. Eds. Michael B., Wabahe M.A., Vonkie N.R., Mekondjo L.S., Michael B., Wabahe M.A., Vonkie N.R., Mekondjo L.S., Léa L., Linus K., Clemens G., Javier R.-D., Carolin H., Sthembile N., Jessica-Jane L., Mutisya K.E., Hauke-Peter V., Rachel W., John H.L., Selma L., Ezequiel F.C., Margaret A., Kamwi M.K., Joseph E. M., Johannes D., and Liobia L. (Boydell and Brewer, Suffolk, UK), 305–328.
Fauna & Flora (2025). Discover the extraordinary everything (Cambridge, UK: Fauna & Flora International). Available online at: https://www.fauna-flora.org.
García Pinillos R. (2021). One welfare impacts of COVID-19–A summary of key highlights within the one welfare framework. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 236, 105262. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105262
Green J., Schmidt-Burbach J., and Elwin A. (2023). Taking stock of wildlife farming: A global perspective. GECCO 43, e02452. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02452
Hakansson E. and Bailey-Smith N. (2023). Feathers are the new fur: Cruelty in disguise (Sydney, NSW, Australia: World Animal Protection & Collective Fashion Justice).
Heid B. and Márquez-Ramos L. (2023). International environmental agreements and imperfect enforcement: Evidence from CITES. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 118, 102784. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102784
Hermesch S. and Isberg S. R. (2022). “Economic values for skin grade, days to market and number of hatchlings in the Australian saltwater crocodile industry,” in Proceedings of 12th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production (WCGALP). Eds. Veerkamp R. F. and de Haas Y. (Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands), 1749–1752.
Herzog H. (2014). Biology, culture, and the origins of pet-keeping. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 1, 296–308. doi: 10.12966/abc.08.06.2014
Hierink F., Bolon I., Durso A. M., de Castañeda R. R., Zambrana-Torrelio C., Eskew E. A., et al. (2020). Forty-four years of global trade in CITES-listed snakes: Trends and implications for conservation and public health. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108601. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108601
Hinsley A., Willis J., Dent A. R., Oyanedel R., Kubo T., and Challender D. W. S. (2023). Trading species to extinction: evidence of extinction linked to the wildlife trade. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1, e10. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.7
Hitchens R. T. and Blakeslee A. M. H. (2020). Trends in illegal wildlife trade: Analyzing personal baggage seizure data in the Pacific Northwest. PloS One 15, e0234197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234197
Hughes A., Auliya M., Altherr S., Scheffers B., Janssen J., Nijman V., et al. (2023). Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade. J. Environ. Manage. 341, 117987. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117987
Hutton J. and Webb G. (2002). “Legal trade snaps back: using the experience of crocodilians to draw lessons on regulation of the wildlife trade,” in Crocodiles: proceedings of the 16th working meeting of the crocodile specialist group (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland), 1–5.
IFAW (2025). About us (London, UK: International Fund for Animal Welfare). Available online at: https://www.ifaw.org/uk.
IUCN (2025). Our members (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). Available online at: https://iucn.org.
Johnson C. K., Hitchens P. L., Pandit P. S., Rushmore J., Evans T. S., Young C. C. W., et al. (2020). Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20192736. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2736
Kasterine A., Arbeid R., Caillabet O., and Natusch D. (2012). “The trade in southeast Asian python skins,” (International Trade Centre (ITC), Traffic International, World Conservation Union (IUCN, Geneva, Switzerland).
Kekana M. R., Engelbrecht A., Bonato M., and Cloete S. W. P. (2023). Ostrich (Struthio camelus) feather production and research: an historic overview. World’s Poultry Sci. J. 79, 619–637. doi: 10.1080/00439339.2023.2225794
Khadiejah S., Razak N., Ward-Fear G., Shine R., and Natusch D. (2019). Asian water monitors (Varanus salvatorv) remain common in Peninsular Malaysia, despite intense harvesting. Wildlife Res. 46, 265–275. doi: 10.1071/WR18166
Lambert H., Elwin A., Assou D., Auliya M., Harrington L. A., Hughes A. C., et al. (2025). Chains of commerce: A comprehensive review of animal welfare impacts in the international wildlife trade. Animals 15, 971. doi: 10.3390/ani15070971
Lawler O. K., Allan H. L., Baxter P. W. J., Castagnino R., Tor M. C., Dann L. E., et al. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health. Lancet Planet Health 5, e840–e850. doi: 10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00258-8
Lidz F. (2015). Crikey! The family of Australia’s famed Crocodile Hunter is inspiring the next generation of reptile science–and feeding the controversy about animals in captivity. Smithsonian 45, 70–79.
Liew J. H., Kho Z. Y., Lim R. B. H., Dingle C., Bonebrake T. C., Sung Y. H., et al. (2021). International socioeconomic inequality drives trade patterns in the global wildlife market. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf7679. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf7679
Lyons J. A. and Natusch D. J. D. (2014). “Assessment of python breeding farms supplying the international high-end leather industry,” in Occasional paper of the IUCN species survival commission no. 50 (IUCN, Gland, Switerland).
Macdonald D. W., Harrington L. A., Moorhouse T. P., and D’Cruze N. (2021). Trading animal lives: ten tricky issues on the road to protecting commodified wild animals. Bioscience 71, 846–860. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biab035
Marsh S. M. E., Hoffmann M., Burgess N. D., Brooks T. M., Challender D. W. S., Cremona P. J., et al. (2022). Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13844. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13844
Marshall B. M., Strine C., and Hughes A. C. (2020). Thousands of reptile species threatened by under-regulated global trade. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18523-4
Marshall B. M., Alamshah A. L., Cardoso P., Cassey P., Chekunov S., Eskew E. A., et al (2025). The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (2), e2410774121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2410774121
Maulany R. I., Mutmainnah A., Nasri N., Achmad A., and Ngakan P. O. (2021). Tracing current wildlife trade: An initial investigation in Makassar City, Indonesia. For. Soc. 5, 277–287. doi: 10.24259/fs.v5i2.9097
Meeks D., Morton O., and Edwards D. P. (2024). Wildlife farming: Balancing economic and conservation interests in the face of illegal wildlife trade. People Nat. 6, 446–457. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10588
Mermin J., Hutwagner L., Vugia D., Shallow S., Daily P., Bender J., et al. (2004). Reptiles, amphibians, and human Salmonella infection: a population-based, case-control study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38, S253–S261. doi: 10.1086/381594
Morton O., Nijman V., and Edwards D. P. (2024). Assessing and improving the veracity of international trade in captive-bred animals. J. Environ. Manage. 354, 120240. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120240
Natusch D. J. D., Aust P. W., and Shine R. (2021). The perils of flawed science in wildlife trade literature. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1396–1404. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13716
Natusch D. J., Carter J. F., Aust P. W., Van Tri N., Tinggi U., Riyanto A., et al. (2017). Serpent’s source: Determining the source and geographic origin of traded python skins using isotopic and elemental markers. Biol. Conserv. 209, 406–414. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.042
Natusch D. J., Lyons J. A., Mumpuni, Riyanto A., and Shine R. (2016). Jungle giants: assessing sustainable harvesting in a difficult-to-survey species (Python reticulatus). PloS One 11, e0158397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158397
Phelps J., Biggs D., and Webb E. L. (2016). Tools and terms for understanding illegal wildlife trade. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 479–489. doi: 10.1002/fee.1325
Reino L., Figueira R., Beja P., Araújo M. B., Capinha C., and Strubbe D. (2017). Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700783. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700783
Ribeiro J., Bingre P., Strubbe D., Santana J., Capinha C., Araújo M. B., et al. (2022). Exploring the effects of geopolitical shifts on global wildlife trade. Bioscience 72, 560–572. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biac015
Roe D., Dickman A., Kock R., Milner-Gulland E. J., Rihoy E., and ‘t Sas-Rolfes M. (2020). Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. World Dev. 136, 105121. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105121
Romero-Vidal P., Hiraldo F., Rosseto F., Blanco G., Carrete M., and Tella J. L. (2020). Opportunistic or non-random wildlife crime? Attractiveness rather than abundance in the wild leads to selective parrot poaching. Diversity 12, 314. doi: 10.3390/d12080314
Rosen G. E. and Smith K. F. (2010). Summarizing the evidence on the international trade in illegal wildlife. EcoHealth 7, 24–32. doi: 10.1007/s10393-010-0317-y
Saalfeld K., Fukuda Y., Duldig T., and Fisher A. (2016). “Management program for the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) in the northern territory of Australia 2016-2020,” (Northern Territory Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Darwin, Australia).
Sandré T., Vanderlinden J.-P., Scao J.-M. G., Wickson F. E., and Zhu Z. (2024). Addressing epistemic injustices in species at risk assessments through improved credibility and legitimacy: case study of narwhal management in Ittoqqortoormiit. NAMMCO Sci. Publications 13. doi: 10.7557/3.7371
Santos A., Satchabut T., and Vigo Trauco G. (2011). Do wildlife trade bans enhance or undermine conservation efforts. Appl. Biodiversity Perspective Ser. 1, 1–15.
Stephen C., Wilcox A., Sine S., and Provencher J. (2023). A reimagined One Health framework for wildlife conservation. Res. Directions: One Health 1, e12. doi: 10.1017/one.2023.2
Stringham O. C. and Lockwood J. L. (2018). Pet problems: biological and economic factors that influence the release of alien reptiles and amphibians by pet owners. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2632–2640. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13237
Toland E., Bando M., Hamers M., Cadenas V., Laidlaw R., Martínez-Silvestre A., et al. (2020). Turning negatives into positives for pet trading and keeping: A review of positive lists. Animals 10, 2371. doi: 10.3390/ani10122371
TRAFFIC (2025). CITES (Cambridge, UK: Traffic International (Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce). Available online at: https://www.traffic.org/about-us/cites/.
UNCTAD (2012). Improving international systems for trade in reptile skins based on sustainable Use (New York & Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).
UNCTAD (2014). Traceability systems for a sustainable international trade in Southeast Asian python skins (New York & Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).
VKM, de Boer H., Asmyhr M. G., Flø D., Gehrke B., Grainger M., et al. (2023). Scientific assessment of risk to populations of pythons listed by CITES as a result of trade (Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM).
Wahab D. A., Maulany R. I., Nasri, and Nirsyawita (2020). Hunting and trading activities of reticulated python (Python reticulatus) in South Sulawesi, Indonesia: A report from the field. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 486, 12029. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/486/1/012029
Warwick C. (2014). The morality of the reptile” pet” trade. J. Anim. Ethics 4, 74–94. doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.4.1.0074
Warwick C. (2020). Zoonoplasticity as an intuitive risk protocol for companion-animal-linked zoonoses. Rev. Sci. Tech. 39, 817–830. doi: 10.20506/rst.39.3.3180
Warwick C., Arena P., Steedman C., and Jessop M. (2012). A review of captive exotic animal-linked zoonoses. JEHR 12, 9–24.
Warwick C., Pilny A., Steedman C., and Grant R. (2023). One health implications of fur farming. Front. Anim. Sci. 4. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1249901
Warwick C. and Steedman C. (2021a). Exotic pet trading and keeping: proposing a model government consultation and advisory protocol. J. Vet. Behav. 43, 66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.03.002
Warwick C. and Steedman C. (2021b). Regulating pets using an objective positive list approach. J. Vet. Behav. 42, 53–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.01.008
Warwick C. and Steedman C. (2021c). Wildlife-pet markets in a one-health context. Int. J. One Health 7, 42–64. doi: 10.14202/IJOH.2021.42-64
Webb G. J. (2020). History of crocodile management in the Northern Territory of Australia: A conservation success story (Cambridge, UK: Crocodile Farmers Association of the Northern Territory & Wildlife Management International).
Wells V., Athwal N., Nervino E., and Carrigan M. (2021). How legitimate are the environmental sustainability claims of luxury conglomerates? JFMM 25, 697–722. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-09-2020-0214
Wienhues A., Baard P., Donoso A., and Oksanen M. (2023). The ethics of species extinctions. Camb Prism Extinct 1, e23. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.21
Wiersema A. (2016). Incomplete bans and uncertain markets in wildlife trade Vol. 12 (Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review), 65–87.
Wiersema A. (2017). CITES and the whole chain approach to combating illegal wildlife trade. J. Wildl. L. Pol’y. 20, 207–225. doi: 10.1080/13880292.2017.1409396
World Wildlife Fund (2025). How does WWF engage with CITES (Washington DC, USA: World Wildlife Fund Inc). Available online at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/resources/explainers/cites/:~:text=WWF%20has%20supported%20CITES%20since,benefits%20for%20people%20and%20nature.
Keywords: feather trade, policy transparency, skin trade, sustainable utilization, wildlife conservation
Citation: Warwick C, Steedman C, Arena P and Grant R (2026) Beneath the skin of conservation claims by the wildlife fashion industry: a rapid evidence assessment, brief survey, & novelty stress-test on objectivity of data used by key regulatory sectors concerning four example species. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6:1719758. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1719758
Received: 06 October 2025; Accepted: 23 December 2025; Revised: 18 December 2025;
Published: 14 January 2026.
Edited by:
Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB), IndiaReviewed by:
Tanguy Sandré, UMS3342 Observatoire des sciences de l’univers de l’UVSQ (OVSQ), FranceCopyright © 2026 Warwick, Steedman, Arena and Grant. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Clifford Warwick, Y2xpZmZvcmR3YXJ3aWNrQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
†ORCID: Clifford Warwick, orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-6096
Catrina Steedman, orcid.org/0000-0003-2809-1445
Phillip Arena, orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-7563
Rachel Grant, orcid.org/0000-0002-0670-1858