3.1. Sample
Respondents were diverse in their academic foci. Their work examined a wide range of species that encompassed both mammals and non-mammals in varied marine and terrestrial environments (
Table 1). These species were farmed (or being considered for farming) for different reasons; while some were used for food, others were farmed for Traditional Chinese Medicine. Congruent with high rates of wildlife farming across China and Southeast Asia [
6,
7], the majority of respondents had expertise in this geographic reason. However, several respondents worked in other geographic contexts such as Africa and Oceania. The results indicate that academic work on wildlife farming intersects with numerous disciplines other than conservation. The respondents self-identified as specialists in a variety of fields. These included conservation-focused disciplines (such as biology, ecology, and conservation social science) as well as fields such as economics, wildlife domestication, and consumer demand. There were no significant differences in responses/themes based upon the gender of the respondent.
While all respondents defined conservation as a process that focused on species-level or population concerns (rather than individual animals), they emphasized different parts of this process (
Table 2). Further, when asked how to determine the correct treatment of wildlife, or how to structure human–wildlife interaction, respondents mentioned a variety of factors other than conservation. These considerations included moral, animal welfare, cultural, economic, and criminal factors (
Table 3). All of the interviewees mentioned at least two of these factors and discussed their efforts to simultaneously balance numerous, sometimes conflictual, priorities. As views of conservation and the correct treatment of wildlife inform how “harms” and “benefits” in wildlife farming are defined, the respondents addressed this question from various angles. The small sample nevertheless allowed for a rich examination of how different cultural contexts, approaches to conservation, and species differences impact the evaluation of wildlife farming.
Most respondents defined wildlife farming as the commercial breeding of a wild, non-domesticated species. However, as discussed below, the interviewees gave examples of how the label “wildlife farm” is sometimes misleadingly applied or withheld in order to gain social approval for the practices occurring at the facility. Some respondents noted that, while wildlife farming is often perceived as applying only to fauna (animals), the farming of flora (plants) is technically included under the term “wildlife”.
Respondents mentioned that it is important to differentiate wildlife farming from other forms of captive breeding. According to one academic, “there are two kinds of captive breeding: conservation breeding and commercial breeding (or wildlife farming)”. He noted that the commercial aspect of wildlife farming distinguishes it from other forms of captive breeding that have a more explicit conservation purpose, such as breeding animals for release into the wild or for the intent of genetic diversity. Another participant clarified that it is also important to distinguish between “open- and closed-circuit systems” of captive breeding. This refers to, among other aspects, “where the primary stock comes from, and if it is continually enhanced with wild individuals or not”.
Four respondents perceived wildlife farming as expanding overall. However, all the interviewees discussed how the prevalence of this practice depends upon species and country and, as the farming of some species wanes, it emerges for others. One respondent noted that “certain animals will decrease in how much they’re farmed (such as bears in some countries) but now you see a lot of porcupine farms”. Another academic mentioned that, due to social pressure and the ban on international trade in the species, there is only one sea turtle farm remaining (in the Cayman Islands). Some respondents mentioned that, while wildlife farming is increasing in Asia, they expect it to lessen in other geographic contexts over time. One respondent clarified that the increase in farmed wildlife includes species inaccurately labeled as captive-bred, he said that “the trade in species declared as captive-bred is expanding but in parallel with that is laundering of wild-caught species being declared [as] captive-bred, that is also expanding”.
3.2. Harms and Benefits of Wildlife Farms
3.2.1. Animal Welfare
The academics used various factors to evaluate the harms and benefits of wildlife farms (
Table 4). All of the respondents mentioned the detrimental consequences of wildlife farms on animal welfare. They specifically mentioned signs of extreme stress, food deprivation/low-quality nutrition, dehydration, limited space sometimes to the point where the animal was unable to move, inability to engage in natural behaviors (such as migration or socialization), and the separation of mothers from their young. The academics were not veterinarians but, as first-hand observers of wildlife farms who often worked in interdisciplinary teams with veterinarians, they all brought up animal welfare as a concern. However, as conceptions of animal welfare are wide and variable, justification by a veterinarian is not necessarily required. One respondent who studied bear farms described bears in “tiny rusty cages” with a “catheter inserted in its gallbladder to remove bile, which absolutely shortens their life and I can imagine is painful and uncomfortable and gives them a plethora of diseases”.
Respondents who studied reptiles, as well as those who looked at mammals, brought up animal welfare as a concern. An academic who looked at sea turtle farms explained “the animals were biting each other all the time, [and] they were quite stressed, [and] they weren’t really able to show their natural behaviors. Those are all ways that you can say that animal welfare is being harmed. I’m sure there’s different levels to that… stress levels are probably a good indicator and they were physically attacking each other. There are people who say: ‘well you also see that when you visit a cow farm’ and that might be true, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK from an animal welfare perspective”. Another academic who studied snake farms mentioned welfare abuse that occurs because of the physical resilience of reptiles. Although these animals can survive rough handling and long periods without food or water, “they are suffering as much [as mammals]”.
Several respondents mentioned the difficulty of balancing animal welfare with other concerns (such as livelihoods). As one academic noted: “I don’t think anyone who would say we are going to produce wildlife of any sort would say that we can create enclosures that match wild conditions and some people might say that that’s the only condition under which they would accept wildlife farming. I appreciate that the economics of it, and space and so on, make that fundamentally impossible. Like with most things, I suspect there’s a compromise”. However, some of the academics (particularly those who focused on mammals), noted that the “scale of suffering” reached a point where animal welfare became a paramount factor. One academic who visited bear farms said, “I can’t remove myself from evaluating it in the context of the welfare of the animals, which supersedes anything…for me the welfare dominates everything…I think people who can debate farming, particularly of these large carnivores, they don’t see these terrible farms and they actively remove themselves from having to confront that”.
3.2.2. Environmental Impacts
Interviewees described both the environmental harms and benefits of wildlife farms. Five of the respondents mentioned how it is difficult for wildlife farms to reduce poaching. One respondent noted that, “wildlife farming involves a lot of costs: infrastructure, operating costs, regulatory and certification schemes, all involve a lot of costs, and on the contrary, poaching involves low costs”. Another discussed how, even if wildlife farms lower the cost of wildlife products, this must be combined with higher risks for poachers or this will have counterproductive effects. Of crocodile farms he said: “crocodiles breed well in captivity… that’s not the issue and it may have impacts on the price. But if there’s no risk to the poacher, maybe the price has halved, but all that means is that the poacher now needs to get twice as many animals to continue his income. It doesn’t matter how low the prices go [for farmed products], if there’s no risk, profit is still profit”. A common comment was that “poaching continues as farming continues”. However, the respondents also mentioned that the relationship between wildlife farms and poaching is difficult to prove one way or another because of the complexities of the wildlife trade. As one academic replied: “That’s one of the arguments that I hate: that farming will decrease poaching. It’s used for example in China because there are legal farms in China and the bear populations in China are apparently, we don’t really know for sure, relatively stable; however, that does not take into account all the Chinese poachers coming into Southeast Asia or the tours (illegal wildlife tours going into Southeast Asia) or the international trade coming across”.
The academics also mentioned other environmental considerations such as laundering, waste, genetic pollution, land management, and climate change. One interviewee noted that wildlife farms can open up a “channel for the laundering of illegally sourced animals into the international market; for example, geckos are taken from the wild in Indonesia and laundered to the global market and declared as captive bred and they’re not”. Another noted that the waste of wildlife farms can harm the local ecosystem and gave the example of frog farms in Thailand, which produce “massive amounts of waste because it’s cheaper to produce them [frogs] en masse in very small enclosures”. However, another respondent reported that snakes produce very little waste so “in China, snake farming is the only livestock activity that can be practiced on the edge of rivers because there’s no waste”. One academic mentioned that genetic pollution can occur when farmed animals are released into the wild, either intentionally or accidentally. He noted that farmed wildlife are often “hybridized taxa” that are problematic from a conservation standpoint. Another interviewee discussed the benefits of snake farms from the perspective of land management in a changing climate. He noted that snake farmers promote “pesticide-free rodent management since they want non-poisoned rats to feed their snakes” and discussed how snakes can be raised in a relatively small area, require very little food inputs (snakes are “90% more efficient than warm-blooded animals like chickens or pigs”), and are tolerant of extreme weather events such as drought. Overall, the respondents emphasized how the perceived environmental harms and benefits of wildlife farms vary greatly depending upon the type of production and the species.
3.2.3. Sustenance, Commercialism, and Scale
Two of the respondents studied small-scale wildlife farms geared at the provision of sustenance. One interviewee who studied the domestication of the giant cane rate in Cameroon noted that “the advantage of this animal is that, since it is small, it can be reared by farmers who are poor, who do not have a lot of capital to invest in stables and fences, or whatever you normally need to keep animals”. Similarly, another academic who researched snake farms emphasized how this species is uniquely suitable for small-scale farmers with limited resources, since snakes can be raised on a vertical plane and require minimal and sporadic food. Respondents discussed how sustenance impacted how they weighed the differential impacts of wildlife farms. As one interviewee said: “if you deal with poor farm families who endure every year, over parts of the year, devastating hunger, the question of whether to domesticate an animal or not is a question of whose welfare is more important, the person’s welfare or the animal’s welfare, and then if you can’t satisfy both, I would say it’s the human being that should be given advantage”.
Other interviewees, particularly those with expertise in the farming of bears and tigers for luxury products, viewed wildlife farms as primarily a profit-driven (rather than a conservation-oriented or sustenance-based) enterprise. One noted that “[wildlife farming has] always been for maximum profit, it’s never been for a conservation reason, as least for these large carnivores”. Another said: “there are very few examples where farming has been used primarily as a conservation strategy versus as a commercial thing that may or may not have ancillary conservation benefits…the examples that I can think of that are actually conservation-driven are sea turtles in the Caimans and it’s been tried for orchids”. Another respondent with expertise on sea turtle farms described how these facilities too became commercialized: “when this business was created in the 1960s, the initial rationale behind it was let’s try wildlife farming as a conservation tool… but as they kept doing it, you need to find money to run these things, and at the same time you realize the potential in terms of attracting people to go and visit [so now] it’s more like a theme park along with a wildlife farming facility…it just developed that way because they need money”.
Some respondents also mentioned how the profit motive of wildlife farms (as commercial enterprises) influence other factors such as animal welfare. One interviewee noted that, since sea turtles “take so long to grow and so long to be ready for slaughter, you have to have a lot in order to meet demand. You have to have a lot [of turtles] at the same time because you have different cohorts. And also of course these facilities are restrained by size”. This leads to extreme crowding and stress for the turtles. Another academic mentioned that the profit motive can lead to an expansion of demand, saying that, “when it’s profitable, people will begin using these products in different forms or ways. So let’s say tiger bone was once only used for back pain or whatever it was and now you have tiger wine which is supposed to cure cancer too… that’s how the economy works, if there is a demand and it’s readily available, people will of course try to make more money out of it”.
3.2.4. Demand for Wildlife Products
A primary way through which the academics conceptualized the harms and benefits of wildlife farming was the impact of this practice on demand for wildlife products. Most of the respondents mentioned surging demand for wildlife amidst an extinction crisis as a primary driver of wildlife farms. As one interviewee noted, “if you’re going to supply demand purely by going out and shooting a bear, it’s not going to work, because there’s no bears left. Keeping them in captivity means you have a constant supply of bile”. Some respondents mentioned the saturation of demand as a benefit of wildlife farms (specifically of snake farms).
Other interviewees noted that wildlife farms can increase demand. One academic who researched bear farms noted, “demand is so rampant. These animals are gone so the only way to continue filling this demand is to have them in farms. So, what that means is that you’re fueling this demand, you’re continuing this demand…when the [bear] farming started [in Vietnam], it became this huge fad so it absolutely increased demand. And that demand has maintained. I don’t think it ever decreases demand”. Another academic agreed: “farming often increases demand… For example, the Asiatic black bears in Korea… once the government legalized farming, the bears went extinct in Korea because of that”. One respondent mentioned tigers as another example where farms have failed to decrease demand: “tigers breed like flies in captivity and are still getting completely decimated in the wild in all of their range states so clearly the tiger farms in China haven’t removed any of the demand for wild tiger”.
However, it was common for the respondents to clarify that demand is nuanced and it is difficult to establish direct causation between wildlife farms and demand. As one academic noted: “we don’t know [the impact of wildlife farms on demand for wildlife products] because demand is so variable. Wildlife farming, I think it can decrease demand for wild products if people are happy with substitution. However, I think it does normalize consumption of certain species, which increases demand. But I think it can probably increase demand for the farmed one rather than the wild one…but we also know, and again it depends on the product, if things are rare, there’s going to also be increased demand for them in certain communities”. In addition to considering demand more broadly, the respondents examined accessibility and consumer preferences, species differences, substitutability, and governance.
3.2.5. Accessibility and Preferences
The respondents discussed accessibility as one mechanism through which wildlife farms influence demand. As one academic noted, “wildlife farming could also decrease prices and then it would become available to a larger group of people. With high prices, most people simply couldn’t afford these luxury products”. Another concurred: “now there’s a whole new market available, so demand has gone up”. One interviewee discussed how, when endangered animals are farmed, the volume of products increases, and so can demand: “some of these animal products were very rare in the past and now that they’re being bred on a large scale, more people have access to them, and that already could increase demand”. Another respondent noted that wildlife farms also make procuring wildlife products easier, saying that, at least for wild animals, “it’s been a challenge for someone to poach them… when you remove the farms you remove the easy accessibility and you add in all those challenges”.
Some of the interviewees looked at the impact of wildlife farms on demand in terms of preferences. This included analyzing “if having something [legal and farmed] available was changing people’s attitudes towards the wild or farmed turtle meat or if they were still interested in buying illegal meat”. Another academic noted that, “I think the perception that consuming or purchasing from a farm is not detrimental to wild populations is probably the biggest threat posed by the captive breeding industry”.
3.2.6. Species Differences
All of the interviewees mentioned how the effects of wildlife farms on demand are species-specific. One respondent gave the example of snakes and noted that, for this species, “[farming has] saturated demand… supply outstrips demand massively in the snake trade”. However, he clarified that snakes are resilient to “high levels of harvest”. Respondents who studied other species, such as turtles, that take years to breed and mature, noted how biological factors of the animals restrained the effectiveness of wildlife farms. One interviewee discussed the effects of species differences in depth: “For crocodiles, farming has been legalized for many years and it has relieved the poaching crisis in some countries, not all countries. For crocodiles, the demand is just focused on meat and skin, so the demand has not increased, so I think the crocodile farms have helped relieve the poaching crisis in some countries, but I think for other species, it is a quite different. Bear farming has been legalized for quite a long time, but bear farming has not contributed to reducing poaching of bears from the wild. For bears, there is one market for legal products and one market for illegal products. In Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, there is a preference for products from wild bears. So, the promotion of bear farming hasn’t reduced the demand for products from wild bears. Farming bears is not a solution to the poaching crisis, and has negatively affected the welfare of bears”. Some respondents discussed how wildlife farms can produce differential results due to biological characteristics of the species, such as time to maturity, ability to breed in captivity, and resilience to harvest. Other interviewees, as evidenced in the contrast drawn between crocodiles and bears, emphasized how it is substitutability (or lack thereof) that produces variable outcomes.
3.2.7. Substitutability
Respondents noted how the impact of wildlife farms depends upon whether farms can provide an alternative (or substitute) for poached wildlife; as one interviewee noted, “if they [consumers] prefer horn from farmed rhinos, then farming rhinos can be a solution, but if more of them prefer horn from wild rhinos, then farming rhinos might not be a solution”. However, five interviewees mentioned consumer preference for wild products as a potential obstacle to substitutability. One noted: “If you can give consumers something that they want that’s a legal, sustainable alternative, then there’s no economic or psychological reason that they shouldn’t accept it. Unfortunately, we know that for a number of species, both because of the rarity effect and because of perceived differences, and in some cases because of real differences, their preference is for wild [animals]”. One interviewee reported that, in the case of turtle consumption, “there is a group of people who prefer to get turtle from the wild, because they say it’s so much tastier, and it’s healthier, and the flavor is different, and so on”. She noted that the strength of this preference for wild turtles was such that captive-bred turtles were poached from a wildlife farm and falsely labeled as wild-caught. However, another respondent who studied snakes noted that the market for wild-caught snakes “is a much smaller market [than farmed snakes] and it does not represent a threat to wild populations”.
Seven interviewees discussed how parallel markets can develop for the farmed product and the wild product. One respondent noted that, for some species, the markets for wild and farmed products are “often not even competitive, meaning that these are often parallel, separate markets; so, for these species, poaching will often increase”. Multiple interviewees contended that, in the case of bears, wildlife farms have created an additional market (for the farmed product) that does not mitigate the original demand for wild-caught animals. However, respondents also noted that the markets for farmed and wild products are often intertwined. One interviewee clarified that farmed and wild animal products “often operate together: [they are sold in the] same markets, same restaurants, [by the same] traders”. One academic said that, for certain species, a lack of labeling leads to a single market. Speaking of giant cane rats, she said, “they don’t put a label on it they just put the animal on the table…you don’t see if it was from the wild or reared in the back garden”.
3.2.8. Governance
Finally, the interviewees also mentioned how governance influences the relationship between wildlife farms and demand for wildlife products. One respondent noted that good governance is “not only a prerequisite, it’s the prerequisite [for wildlife farms to have benefits]. In order for farming to have a conservation benefit, it goes far beyond just choosing a species that breeds like a rabbit in captivity. There has to be very strict laws and enforcement in place to prevent continual hunting or poaching of the wild populations. There has to be traceability to ensure that the retailers and consumers can ensure that the product they’re buying is from the farm and not the wild”. That interviewee also emphasized how, even when parallel markets of farmed and wild products occur, good governance can help prevent poaching. He gave the example of salmon farms which have led to “a massive increase in [farmed salmon] consumption from the United States but we haven’t, including because of good governance, we haven’t seen an increase in demand for wild salmon. Or we have seen an increase in demand for wild [salmon] but we’ve controlled it because we have a decently good regulatory system and strong enforcement”. According to another respondent, snake farms in Asia are also “quite well-regulated”.
However, other academics noted that, when strong governance is absent, wildlife farms can have counterproductive effects on wild populations. Two respondents mentioned species where captive breeding has helped wild populations in countries with strong governance but has failed to protect wild animals in Southeast Asia, where wildlife farms are prevalent, “the governments don’t always have that much power” and/or conservation regulations are not adequately enforced. For example, one academic discussed crocodile farming: “in Australia, that’s had a bit of success; in Southeast Asia, farming has not been helpful for wild crocodile populations…in fact, in Southeast Asia, I can’t think of one example that has helped wild populations”. Another interviewee gave the example of Indonesian cockatoos. These birds “are bred in captivity in the US and the US trade in cockatoos is now almost completely relying on locally bred birds so there’s no negative impact [from the US pet trade] on Indonesia’s populations anymore, but cockatoos are still poached in huge numbers in Indonesia and laundered through countries like the Solomon Islands and other countries to support demand in countries that don’t have strict legislation like the US does”.
The academics also mentioned that good governance of wildlife farms requires resources to differentiate between farmed and poached products. As one interviewee noted, when “there’s a legal source of animals that makes it really challenging to arrest someone that might have an illegal wild turtle because we can’t really tell which is which by looking at it. And I think that’s quite a normal concern to have. What they are trying to do in the Cayman Islands, they are trying to make sure that every time you buy legal turtle, it comes in a certified bag with a lock or something like that. And you have to keep it closed until you cook it or eat it”.
Although several respondents discussed the current lack of good governance in wildlife farms and the resultant laundering (which can occur when poached animals are falsely presented as legally farmed), they differed in their interpretation of laundering. Some construed laundering as primarily a governance issue; for example, one respondent said: “I can think of lots of examples of laundering. Now does the fact that there’s laundering, does that mean that wildlife farming cannot reduce wild demand? No, it means that there’s poor governance. Just like, we have taxes to collect in Indonesia and a lot of people either pay bribes or don’t get collection of taxes, they get around it, and that happens in the States, does that mean that collecting taxes is automatically bad? No, it means that there’s a governance failure around it”. In contrast, other academics viewed laundering as endemic to legal wildlife farms.
3.3. Stigmatization or Acceptance of Wildlife Farms
In their discussion of stigma(s), the respondents noted that stigmatization can have both detrimental and protective effects on wildlife. A few respondents mentioned the harmful effects of stigma within the conservation community. One noted that “there is a huge stigma or misperception that just because it’s [the animal’s] wild, it must be endangered”, which restrains acceptance of wildlife farms. Another academic said that, within the conservation community, sustainable use is stigmatized by some and animal welfare/rights is stigmatized by others. He noted that this can limit discussions of tools to protect wildlife, which in turn can harm conservation efforts.
However, five academics also noticed the benefits of stigma in the context of wildlife farms. One interviewee remarked on how bans can create a protective stigma: “there was a huge stigma on elephant ivory but then it started to become legal again and I think people saw it as elephants are doing just fine, and that stigma of using ivory has actually decreased and elephants are now killed in the tens of thousands again”. Other academics noted that stigma can create limits to consumption that help keep it within sustainable limits: one noted that, “when you’re speaking about wildlife consumption, I think it’s good to have some barriers about what’s OK to do and what’s not OK because otherwise it creates so much demand that you can’t sustainably meet that demand. So, in a way it’s good that [in the Cayman Islands], they still see sea turtle, even if it’s farmed, as something that is consumed occasionally, because if they wanted to consume sea turtle every day, that’s completely unsustainable”. The interviewees mentioned numerous factors that influence the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms: the label “wildlife farm”, what the stigma is attached to, cultural differences in wildlife use, consumer knowledge and motivations, geopolitical factors, and demand reduction efforts (
Table 5).
3.3.1. Wildlife Farm Label
The respondents discussed how the label of “wildlife farm” itself can affect how a facility is perceived. One interviewee noted how the term “farm” is applied to bear bile farms in an attempt to legitimize these facilities. However, he noted that these “farms” rely solely on wild-caught animals, noting that “bear farms don’t breed bears, the bears are not going to ever breed in the cages they’re in… many of them can’t even stand up, let alone breed. Some of them are kept in metal suits so they can’t move, they can move their head and that’s it. We visited every one of them…there’s not one bear farm in Southeast Asia that breeds bears”.
Another respondent gave the example of how, for a sea turtle farm in the Cayman Islands, the phrase “wildlife farm” is purposefully omitted in order to prevent social disapproval: “Before, the name of the facility was the Cayman Sea Turtle Farm or something like that but eventually due to marketing they changed the name, so now there’s a name like Cayman Islands Water Something…it doesn’t say anything about farming…so sometimes people go there on boat cruises or something like that and they don’t really realize it’s a wildlife farming facility as well…and what they find a bit strange is that if they visit the restaurant, they serve a turtle burger and I think that probably raises some questions and then they realize ‘oh yes they are farming turtles.’ But it’s not in the name anymore. And that’s all due to the business side and knowing that if people see very quickly that it’s a wildlife farming facility, they may be a bit put off”.
One respondent mentioned how the wildlife farm label can also be greenwashed, or promoted as conservation-friendly when it’s not, he noted that “a lot of importing countries like to say that they’re importing captive-bred animals so that they don’t have a negative impact on wild conservation. So, the exporting countries pick up on that and say that all these animals that were wild last year are captive-bred this year and they basically change the wording on the paperwork and [then] the importing countries feel like they’re doing something good”.
3.3.2. Source of the Stigma
The respondents also mentioned how the process of stigmatization depends upon the characteristic of wildlife consumption that the stigma is attached to. Some interviewees discussed how, for certain charismatic wildlife species, the stigmatization of wildlife farms reflects a broader social disapproval of use of that species. For example, one academic described the contrast in stigma for crocodile and turtle farms: “for example, crocodile farming, I haven’t looked at the number but there are so many farms across the world and people don’t really think twice if they’re using crocodile skin shoes. Personally, maybe I wouldn’t use them, but I think it’s more mainstream than using anything turtle related…it’s the stigma around some species. I think in people’s minds it’s OK to farm some species and not others and that makes a big contribution to why some species are on the increase and others aren’t in terms of wildlife farming…sea turtles they are a very charismatic species that people are very fond about so there’s a real emotional and cultural attachment to sea turtles so it’s not something that people support. So, it [the turtle farm] is the last one and I would not expect to see other facilities starting sea turtle farming”. Another respondent noted: “people who consider tiger farming absolutely abhorrent will enjoy wild salmon or farmed salmon without giving it a second thought”.
Other interviewees gave examples where stigma is attached to the type of production (farmed or wild-caught). For example, one respondent, speaking of snake products, explained that “in countries where animal welfare and conservation is a higher social concern, they are worried about where they get their product from. For example, one watch company in Switzerland, they are very concerned about where their leather wristbands are coming from…they do not want illegally sourced or wild-caught snakeskin wristbands on their product”. One respondent discussed how stigma can also emerge not from misgivings about the ethics of a mode of production, but out of the perceived inferiority of the wildlife product: “the reason bear bile is a failure is that consumers believe that the quality of the bear bile from the farms is not very good. And the same for rhino. And the same for tiger. They don’t care much about the farming, they just care about what they get in terms of the quality and the price”.
3.3.3. Cultural Differences
The interviewees discussed how the decision about whether or not to allow wildlife farms “depends upon local attitudes and social norms”. They noted how cultural differences impact a variety of views, such as “views about what can and can’t be eaten, welfare standards, what types [of production and consumption] are OK with which types of species, and whether or not habitat and livelihood considerations should come into this”. One academic emphasized that it is important to understand these cultural differences because “wildlife farming is happening in other cultural contexts…and it’s going to happen in those other countries’ contexts because of sovereignty”. He added that the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms is “not endemic to production systems” but rather a reflection of “different [cultural] relationships to animals”.
The interviewees mentioned that one area of cultural difference concerns which species are acceptable to consume and that, particularly in Southeast Asia, wildlife consumption and wildlife farms are intertwined. As one academic noted: “if an animal is being consumed in Southeast Asia, it’s 99% likely it’s being farmed” as wildlife farms are “unfortunately very integrated into the legal wildlife trade there”. Other respondents described how the consumption of numerous wildlife species are normalized. One said that: “snakes, or at least reptiles, are as much a cultural norm in Asia as chickens or pigs in more temperate climates…this is a species that’s been on the menu for millennia”. Another academic commented: “for most of the Western countries, the use of rhino horn is stigmatized, but in Asian countries like China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, the use of animals in traditional medicine has been there for thousands of years and it doesn’t have any stigma”.
The interviewees also described how cultural norms often yield attitudes towards wildlife that are counterintuitive to someone from another culture. One academic discussed how Buddhism is a prominent religion in Southeast Asia and described how it views the correct treatment of wildlife: “in Buddhism, the correct treatment of animals is simply to let them live a life and if that life is awful, they’re still living a life…so that is correct treatment”. She also noted that, in Laos, “people were overwhelmingly, ‘oh I absolutely love bears, and I use bear bile.’ It is hard for people in a Western context to understand but it makes perfect sense for them because they have always used the resources of the forest, and you can love a tree and cut it down”.
Some respondents mentioned how, when cultural traditions are tied to wildlife consumption, wildlife farms can be viewed as a mechanism to preserve those traditions. One interviewee gave the example of turtle farming in the Cayman Islands: “the stories they [local people] told me is that initially in the Cayman Islands, it wasn’t easy to farm any other animals or fruits or anything like that and so they were using sea turtles as a very important source of protein. And so, anyone who is very connected to the history of the Cayman Islands, and connected to the sea, they remain attached to that”. As another academic noted, when wildlife species used for cultural traditions are being decimated in the wild, “you can either destroy that tradition, you can let that species go to extinction and destroy that tradition also because there’s nothing left, or you find an alternative, which sometimes is promoting use of other species, but wildlife farming kind of emerges as a possibility there”. He continued, “it’s much easier to produce than it is to change demand. And also, when demand is culturally tied, there’s perhaps very little desire to change demand. Part of what we do, who we are, what we want…It’s very easy for the United States to ban ivory or to say we don’t farm tigers, because there’s not really any tradition of doing that, but decide that we are going to ban turkeys or deer hunting…then there are a lot of people that would have problems with that”.
Respondents noted that, in countries with heterogenous cultural traditions, the process of stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms may look different than in more culturally homogenous contexts. One academic said: “in Asia, there are some countries that are fairly homogenous (in Japan and South Korea, people have fairly similar norms and beliefs) but other countries in Asia (such as China or Vietnam) are heterogenous and so there are different groups of people with very different social norms, values, and beliefs. For example, in China, one group might think there’s no problem, no stigma, with using tiger bone, but for other groups, such as young people, they might find a stigma. So, the stigma depends upon the society. In a homogenous society, the stigma is general for the whole population but, in a heterogenous society, a stigma might only apply for a particular group of people”. Another respondent described the diverse culture of the Cayman Islands, where the government has promoted turtle farms but where turtle consumption is highly stigmatized within certain segments of the populace: “it’s such a small island and you have so many nationalities there. You have a lot of Americans, British people, Jamaicans, so people with many different perceptions about what’s socially accepted in terms of turtle farms. But in terms of the government, of course, the government is Caymanian, and they always thought this [turtle farming] was very important for them in terms of their identity as a country. The type of issues that were discussed if you were speaking with someone local or someone from the States or UK it was so different, it’s like you were speaking almost about different topics. If it was someone local, especially someone older who was local, they would speak about the history, they would speak about the cultural value, and even show you pictures of how it was back in the day and maybe they’re even giving you recipes or telling you what restaurants you should go to get the best turtle…that’s the type of things they were telling me. If you were speaking to a British citizen there, they were saying ‘oh yes, it’s awful, the animal welfare, I would never do that’ and often they would say ‘I don’t even understand how someone would be willing to eat turtle’”.
3.3.4. Consumer Typology
While respondents described how stigmatization can occur at the societal level, they also gave examples of how it can differ among segments of the population. One interviewee noted how different motivations for wildlife use affect stigma creation: “if people are doing it out of need, then stigmatize it all you want, it’s probably not going to work. And if people are doing it because they’re bad boys who don’t really care what anybody thinks, you might actually increase their desire to do it, so I think that stigma’s relationship to motivation is a little bit more complicated and has to be really targeted and tailored rather than some generic ‘this is bad’”. This respondent explained that how the consumer relates to the product (Is it necessary? Is the illegal aspect the main draw?) will impact both consumption patterns and stigmatization.
Other interviewees highlighted that, at times, the lack of stigmatization around wildlife farms is due not to attitudes or cultural beliefs but to a dearth of awareness (in both producer and consumer countries) about the practice. One interviewee noted that in consumer countries, “there’s a real ignorance” of “believing that everything is captive-bred and therefore feeling OK with buying wildlife products just because they’re declared as captive-bred. Or without understanding the consequences or the impacts of breeding that species on wild populations”. Another respondent described how, in producer countries, “the first step [to stigmatization] is to make people aware of what’s going on”, that alone “can already establish a stigma because a lot of people don’t have an opinion about these practices because they don’t know much about it”. One academic mentioned how, when “people are not aware that the practice occurs in their country or don’t care to know the extent of it”, “governments make the main decision” about the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms in their countries.
3.3.5. Geopolitical Factors
The interviewees reported several geopolitical factors that influence decisions about wildlife farms and described how this choice sits at the intersection of international and national forces. A common response was that wildlife trade is governed “by international agreements like CITES [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora]. If a country is a signatory to one of those agreements, then they need to follow that, that decision is governed or met by the local government in terms of national laws and policies”. However, some respondents emphasized how the stigmatization of wildlife consumption can differ significantly between the international and national levels, which can create conflict over wildlife farms. One academic gave the example of the last sea turtle farm in the Cayman Islands: “when the turtle farm was created, it was still legal to trade sea turtle internationally…but at the same time, some very important international decisions were made regarding the international trade of sea turtles… so there was let’s say a big fight because at that time, the Cayman Turtle Farm was claiming that their turtles were completely bred within the Cayman Islands and that they weren’t relying on wild animals anymore so they shouldn’t be seen as a wildlife farming facility…it was saying that yes, initially we took animals from the wild but now everything is bred locally… so it’s almost like they wanted to see this as domestic and it’s like selling cow—there’s no problem, this is not wildlife. It’s almost like they wanted to be seen as outside of those agreements [CITES] and [saying that] we can still do it. Once in a while there are petitions about this and once in a while, when there are CITES meetings, people still discuss this. But clearly there was a lot of government support locally within the Cayman Islands to have this as a legal activity”. This respondent described how local resistance to the enforcement of international agreements can lead to the acceptance of wildlife farms for domestic consumption even when its stigmatized at the global level.
Other interviewees outlined how political influence or enmity between countries can affect stigma. One described how, if wildlife farms are viewed as a success in one country, other countries might attempt to emulate them: “in Vietnam, [bear bile] farming has been phased out but we are worried that if people argue that bear farming is working in China, then Vietnam might go back to legalizing bear farms”. She expressed how, on the other hand, political animosity between powers can lead to a stigmatization of farmed wildlife products. In her discussion of bear bile farms, she mentioned that, “in Cambodia, there is a slight stigma because they don’t really understand farming, so to them it’s fake, it could be fake [bile]. And it’s something Vietnamese, and the Cambodians hate the Vietnamese. So, I think in that sense it’s a stigma. They’re not particularly fond of the Chinese either and now the Chinese do stuff like that [farming wildlife]…that’s probably why farmed bear bile hasn’t become a thing in Cambodia, because they’re so against the Vietnamese”. She explicated how, although this stigma emerged due to conflict between human populations rather than the treatment of wildlife, it still attached to the farmed wildlife product and affected its social acceptability. However, she also clarified that sometimes stigma affects consumption but not production: “the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and will not take Chinese bear bile in Vietnam. However, it goes the other way… one of the [Vietnamese] bear farmers I spoke with sends all his bear bile to China”.
The interviewees also explained how, since some wildlife farms function as tourist attractions, tourism is another site for the intersection of international and national influences on stigma. One respondent mentioned how a potential issue with wildlife farm tourism is that it could create more demand. In her discussion of a sea turtle farm in the Cayman Islands, she said: “because it’s such a touristic place, there were concerns about restaurants that were serving turtle meat to tourists, because they were saying that was creating more demand. Basically, we have the turtle farm that is producing some meat for domestic use, and yes the tourists are doing it there so it’s still domestic, but it’s not like they [the tourists] are doing it because of their cultural tradition. It’s just because they’re trying something new…so you’re increasing demand without really needing to increase demand”. However, this same academic mentioned how, if tourists approach wildlife farms with different notions of appropriate wildlife treatment than the local population, tourism can also increase stigma of wildlife farms. Still speaking of the sea turtle farm, she continued: “because people go and see pools with a number of animals, some of them showing stress and showing some of these bites, and I think that’s why some of these issues [objections to the farm] came to be because it’s a place where people go to visit and they see for themselves. Just by having that [tourism], that’s why people are aware of why it’s not the best for the animals”.
3.3.6. Demand Reduction Campaigns
Finally, the respondents mentioned deliberate efforts to target wildlife consumption through demand reduction campaigns that attempt to alter social preferences and practices. The interviewees emphasized that much of wildlife consumption has a social component: one gave the example of how “bear bile is usually transmitted socially in terms of it’s given to you by your friend or family member to treat some form of ailment”.
The interviewees emphasized how demand reduction must have cultural resonance in order to avoid counterproductive effects. One academic discussed how stigmatization of consumers can actually prevent behavior change: “others think ‘when I’m talking to consumers, I’m talking to a criminal’ or something like that but for me, I respect everybody, my role is to provide insights so that they can make decisions, so I respect everybody: even the people who use rhino horn, I want to find a solution for them, I want to find a solution to conserve the rhino…when conservation organizations address demand reduction, when they think about traditional medicine, they always think that the product has no benefits and that the consumer is stupid…but when you talk to local people, they feel insulted by some of these campaigns. For example, the campaign that ‘rhino horn is not medicine’ has a lot of problems in Vietnam and has created objections from the local government…this doesn’t take into account cultural differences, history, social aspects…they didn’t talk to the local people or the consumers or TCM [Traditional Chinese Medicine] practitioners, and that campaign did not have effects on consumers, and in some ways created outrage from the local people”. Another respondent noted that “sometimes the message [about wildlife consumption] not only isn’t culturally appropriate to what actually changes people’s behavior, what they care about, but sometimes it’s actively counterproductive…alienating people is generally not a great way to get them to change their behavior. In any sector. It leads people to double down”. The interviewees described how, if stigmatization alienates consumers, and/or is not achieved through cultural resonance, it can increase the acceptance of wildlife consumption and farms.
However, another academic mentioned a demand reduction campaign around bear bile use in Cambodia that took these factors into account. She said: “Western medicine is very accessible in Cambodia. Our research shows that people strongly value Western medicine. We’re going the route of emphasizing Western medicine. We’re saying: ‘trust a professional doctor, don’t listen to the wrong advice.’ That’s our message. We’re not saying anything bad about traditional medicine. We also don’t mention that bears are declining because that doesn’t seem to resonate, and we don’t mention welfare because that does not seem to resonate at all”. She outlined how, while the aim of this campaign was to reduce the social acceptability and use of bear bile (both farmed and wild), it relied on culturally resonant messages and focused on promoting Western medicine rather than denigrating Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Overall, the interviewees described how demand reduction campaigns intersect with many of the other factors mentioned (such as geopolitics, cultural attitudes towards animals, and consumer typology) to influence the stigmatization or acceptance of wildlife farms.