Does the pet trade threaten New York's amphibian and reptile species? Suzanne M. Hohn Department of Biological Sciences University at Albany State University of New York Albany NY 12208 smh116@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the pet trade and native amphibian and reptile species in New York State. A survey of pet stores in New York was conducted to determine which of New York's amphibian and reptile species were sold in pet stores and to determine the sources of animals sold. Sixty-one percent of the amphibian and reptile species occurring in New York were sold in pet stores, including some species listed in New York as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Thus, there is a demand in the New York pet trade for native species. Suppliers reported that many herpetofaunal animals sold in pet stores come from wild populations, although reptiles are somewhat more likely to be captivebred than amphibians. Although New York has a relatively high biodiversity in herpetofauna compared to other northeastern states, New York does not provide as much protective legislation as other states with similar levels of herpetofaunal biodiversity. Some species of special concern may face problems in the future because they are sold in pet stores, but there are no regulations preventing their commercial collection in New York. Three initial steps are proposed to better protect New York herpetofauna from overcollection for the pet trade. (cut down to 120 words) INTRODUCTION Across the United States and around the world, a large number of amphibian and reptile species have been classified as rare, declining in number, or facing possible extirpation in the near future. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration are primary factors believed to be behind many declines (Blaustein et al. 1994; Cooke 1972; Lannoo et al. 1994; Taylor 1997; Tyning 1997b). Other reasons cited as possible or probable factors contributing to population declines
include pollution (including increasing acidification of aquatic environments), depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, global climate change, disease, and natural population fluctuations (Beebee et al. 1990; Blaustein & Wake 1995; Cooke 1972; Pechmann et al. 1991; Phillips 1990). In the U.S., exploitation of species, for food or commercial purposes, is one factor believed to have contributed to population declines (Blaustein & Wake 1995; Franz & Auffenberg 1978; Galligan & Dunson 1979; Jennings & Hayes 1985). A particular aspect of exploitation that is suspected in some cases is collection of animals for the pet trade (McCollough 1997, Speake et al. 1978; others in Tyning 1997a). Few studies, however, provide direct evidence that collection for the pet trade has had a negative impact on natural populations (For an exception, see Macmillan 1987). Particular characteristics, such as small size, and a view of amphibians and reptiles as lowmaintenance, "disposable" pets have led to their popularity as pets (Humane Society 1994; Hoover 1998; Williams 1999). This popularity may provide incentive for species to be overcollected from the wild. Overcollection is the removal of animals from the wild at levels that are unsustainable, i.e., removal that exceeds a population s reproductive capacity to compensate. To examine New York State's status in preventing overcollection, I compared the regulations regarding the collection and sale of herpetofauna in New York with regulations in other northeastern states (Table 1). New York has a relatively high number of amphibian and reptile species, similar to the number of species found in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Yet, New York does not place as many restrictions on collection and sale of herpetofauna as those two states. This lack of restrictions may present the potential for some species in New York to be threatened by collection for the pet trade. However, there is little, if any, information on the relationship between the pet trade in New York and amphibian and reptile species found in New York. To
investigate this relationship, I used Internet searches, telephone conversations, and site visits to survey pet stores in New York State and their suppliers. Pet trade regulations in New York State The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have determined that, of the 75 amphibian and reptile species found in the wild in New York, 29 are in danger of possible extinction and/or in need of protection. These "species of conservation interest" can be classified into one or more of the following groups: endangered species (species facing a serious threat of extinction), threatened species (species facing a high probability of becoming endangered in the future), species of special concern (species for which the DEC has documented a concern or risk), and fully protected game species (game species with no open season). Although these species share a risk of extinction, they do not share a common legal status. All species listed as endangered (n=9) or threatened (n=5) are fully protected in New York State; these animals cannot be possessed or collected at any time without a scientific collection license, which is issued only for scientific, educational, or propagational purposes (Levell 1997). Two additional species, the wood turtle and the eastern box turtle, are fully protected game species, and cannot be collected or possessed at any time. Under New York State law, subspecies of any protected species are also protected, whether or not the subspecies is native to New York. In addition, New York protects all members of the Terrapene genus, i.e., all American box turtles. Seven small game frog species may be collected during certain times of the year with a valid fishing or hunting license. If legally obtained, these animals may be possessed and sold during the closed season. The diamondback terrapin may also be collected (with a diamondback
terrapin license) and sold during a certain period of the year. Other than the regulations described above, species may be collected and sold throughout the year without limit. Species designated as special concern receive no protection as a result of that designation. METHODS Pet stores In April 1998, I obtained from GTE Superpages (http://yp4.gte.net) a list of 711 pet stores in New York State. I randomly selected 100 of these stores, contacted each one, and asked whether the store sold any amphibians or reptiles. Employees at 45 stores responded that they did sell these animals; employees at 34 stores said they did not. For the 21 remaining pet stores, telephones were not answered or had been disconnected. In June and July 1998, I visited 44 of the 45 pet stores that reportedly sold amphibians or reptiles. Pet stores were located throughout New York State. Approximately half (21 of 44) were on Long Island or within 50 miles of New York City. The remaining stores were in or close to cities such as Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, and Plattsburgh, as well as in smaller towns throughout New York. At each pet store, I showed an employee a list of 74 herpetofaunal species living in New York and asked if they could tell me if they had ever sold any of those animals. For animals checked as sold by the pet store, I also asked for an estimate of the number of individuals of each species sold in one year, and the price per individual animal of each species. In addition, I asked for the source of their animals, such as wholesale suppliers or private individuals, and whether the sources were in-state or out-of-state. At every store visited, whether or not an employee responded to my survey, I inspected the store for animals from my list, and for signs advertising those animals. Using the information provided by the pet stores, I determined the number of
stores selling each species. When the information was available, I also calculated the average number of animals of each species sold in one year by one pet store and the average price per animal per species. Suppliers Pet stores provided names of companies from which they received animals. In March 1999, I called seven companies for which I found phone numbers. I explained that I had been told their company supplied pet stores in New York with amphibians and reptiles and asked if they would answer a few questions. I read a list of amphibian and reptile species to them and asked if they sold those animals to pet stores in New York. The species discussed were those reported as sold in the pet store that had given me that supplier s name. With three suppliers, I also asked about additional species. The number of species about which I asked each supplier ranged from seven to twelve. I also told the suppliers that I was interested in their sources of animals and asked if the animals were captive-bred or caught in the wild. For some suppliers, I asked for the particular region from which the animals came. I also asked for the approximate number of stores in New York that the company supplied with animals. RESULTS Pet stores Employees at 37 stores responded to my survey and checked off animals. At five stores, I received no help, but I checked off animals that I observed or for which I saw signs. I used 37 as the number of stores sampled for each animal, except in cases in which I checked the animal off
myself. In those cases, I raised the number of sampled stores by the number of stores for which I had checked the animal off. Of 74 amphibian and reptile species found in New York, 45 were reported as sold in at least one pet store (Table 2). Of the 29 species of conservation interest, 15 were sold in pet stores. This included four protected species (tiger salamander, eastern box turtle, mud turtle, and wood turtle). The number of individual animals reportedly sold in one year varied widely among pet stores. With one exception, however, stores reported selling an average of less than 15 individuals of each species of conservation interest (Table 2). (Note that some results are based on information from only one or a few stores.) The exception was the southern leopard frog; one store estimated selling 500 of those frogs per year. Prices of animals also varied widely among stores and groups of animals. The average price for a salamander was $9.79 (based on 24 prices provided by pet stores); the average price for a frog was $5.60 (20). The average price for a turtle was $14.30 (75), and the average price for a snake was $35.83 (23). The average price for every species of conservation interest, except for the spotted salamander and the northern fence lizard, was higher than the average price for the corresponding order (Table 2). The most expensive salamander, the tiger salamander, is an endangered species, while the most expensive frog (eastern spadefoot), turtle (diamondback terrapin), and snake (eastern hognose snake) are species of special concern. Suppliers Of the 23 pet stores that provided information on the source of their animals, 11 use in-state suppliers and 12 use out-of-state suppliers. One store reported buying animals at reptile expositions. Six stores receive some animals from private individuals; this includes buying
animals from children. Additionally, one store has employees that collect some animals (spring peepers and northern leopard frogs) for the store. I received useful information from five suppliers, three of which each supply animals to 20-50 pet stores in New York State. Two suppliers were based in New York, two in New Jersey, and one in Florida. Suppliers reported selling 12 of the 24 amphibian and reptile species I asked them about. Of the 12 species for which suppliers gave me information, nine were said to be primarily wild-caught animals: red-spotted newt, bullfrog, gray treefrog, leopard frog, southern leopard frog, common map turtle, red-eared slider, spiny softshell, and common garter snake. Three reptile species (and no amphibian species) were described as captive-bred: red-eared slider, spiny softshell, and black rat snake. Both red-eared sliders and spiny softshells were described as wildcaught and captive-bred. Eastern hognose and eastern milk snakes were not sold by suppliers, but I was informed that animals of those species were also primarily captive-bred. No supplier reported selling animals taken from the wild in New York, but only one supplier was directly asked that question. DISCUSSION Limitations of data It is probable that some store employees reported selling animals of the wrong species. For example, firebelly newts (not found in New York) were often confused with red-spotted newts. Some common names on my list were not as specific as they could have been, and therefore, animals reported as sold may have have been animals belonging to species or subspecies not
found in New York. For instance, it is likely that many of the painted turtles sold were western painted turtles, not the eastern or midland painted turtles found in New York. Role of pet stores Clearly there is a market in New York for native herpetofaunal species. Pet stores reported selling 45 of 74 amphibian and reptile species found in New York. Approximately half of the species of conservation interest were reportedly sold in pet stores, although in relatively small numbers compared to other animals. Four legally protected species (tiger salamander, eastern box turtle, mud turtle, and wood turtle) were reported as sold in pet stores. (For the first three of those species, it is possible that the animals sold represented taxa not found in the wild in New York. It is illegal, however, to sell any subspecies of the tiger salamander, as well as any North American box turtle.) The information on sales prices of animals leads to interesting observations. The price for every species of conservation interest, except two, is higher than the average price of the corresponding order of animals. The higher prices may reflect simple scarcity, a premium accorded to rare animals, or a premium associated with risk of detection. The latter seems an unlikely factor, however, given the willingness of most staff to answer questions and the evident confusion over state conservation regulations. For example, when I encountered an obvious misunderstanding of state laws, the store employee tended to err conservatively, by assuming that some non-protected taxa had legal status. In several pet stores, I was told that it was illegal to sell any native species. The two animals most frequently sold were red-eared sliders and painted turtles. Red-eared sliders are nonnative to New York and the painted turtles are more likely to have been western painted turtles than the two subspecies native to New York. Although there is a demand in the
New York pet trade for native species, the demand, as measured by sales volume alone, is smaller than that for nonnative species. Source of animals From my conversations with pet store employees, I learned that some animals sold came from wild populations in New York: employees at one pet store reported collecting spring peepers and northern leopard frogs to sell in their pet store. From the suppliers, I also learned that many amphibians and reptiles sold in pet stores come from the wild. Of the 12 species suppliers reported selling, 9 were described as primarily wild-caught. This information can be compared with information from Enge (1992) on the source of amphibians and reptiles sold in Florida. Sixty-one percent of the animals sold in Florida's pet trade in one year were reported as collected from the wild (Enge 1992). Both these results and mine illustrate that many amphibians and reptiles supplied to pet stores are wild-caught, although reptiles are more likely to be captivebred than amphibians. Implications for amphibian and reptile populations in New York This study highlights possible conservation implications for the New York pet trade: Amphibian and reptile species found in New York were sold in New York pet stores. Many of those animals came from the wild, and at least a small number came from wild populations in New York. The fact that species of conservation interest were sold in pet stores points to a possible need for stronger regulations. At the time of my survey, nine species of special concern could be collected, possessed, and sold in New York without limit, and at least six of those species were sold in pet stores. There is a demand for these animals, and therefore, there is incentive for
collecting. Given the conservation status of those species and the extent of other threats, collecting even a few individuals could affect population viability. With no legislation preventing or limiting their collection, these species are not as protected as they may need to be. Because there is little detailed knowledge of the population dynamics occurring in species of conservation interest, it can be hard to assess how the collection of animals may affect them. However, if the possibility exists that collection for the pet trade could threaten a species, actions taken should follow the precautionary principle and try to prevent irreversible damage by erring on the side of being too conservative, rather than too lenient. Protective measures To provide realistic protection to native amphibians and reptiles more stringent measures for New York State should at least be explored. First, until more studies have been conducted that demonstrate that collection for the pet trade does not present a serious threat, more protection should be provided for species of conservation interest that are sold in pet stores and commercial collection of those species should be restricted. Therefore, all species of special concern ought to be protected from any commercial collection and sales, at least until more is known about them and the levels of collection they can sustain. Firmer regulatory legislation may be difficult to enact in an age of regulation downsizing, but precedents have been set in a number of states, including legislation protecting species of special concern. Second, more research into the extent of commercial collection of wild amphibians and reptiles in New York State would be useful. This information would aid in determining the extent of commercial use of native amphibian and reptile species and the threats posed by that use. Identifying companies and individuals involved in the commercial collection of these
species and obtaining information about their annual activity may be complicated, but is a realistic goal. Finally, more research needs to be conducted on the status of listed and unlisted animals in the wild, including population dynamics. This will provide an opportunity for future regulatory decisions to be based on improved scientific knowledge, including better information on the potential effects of collecting. In comparison to other pressures on amphibians and reptiles, the singular effect of commercial collection may prove to be insignificant. But, collecting may add one more stress to populations already facing uncertain futures. Preventing overcollection will not ensure the survival of amphibian and reptile species in New York, but it may provide populations with an increased chance of surviving until problems such as habitat loss can be effectively addressed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For their help and assistance in the research and writing of this paper, I would like to thank Al Breisch and Mike Kallaji of the New York State Department of Enviornmental Conservation; Dr. George Robinson, Dr. Margaret Stewart, and Dr. Thomas Birkland of the University at Albany; my fellow graduate students in the Biodiversity, Conservation, and Poliyc program and other graduate programs at the University at Albany; and, finally, the cooperative employees of pet stores and supply companies. Paper # in the Biodiversity, Conservation and Policy program. LITERATURE CITED
BEEBEE, T.J.C., R.J. FLOWER, A.C. STEVENSON, S.T. PATRICK, P.G. APPLEBY, C. FLETCHER, BLAUSTEIN, A.R., and D.B. WAKE. 1995. The puzzle of declining amphibian populations. Scientific American 272: 52-57. BLAUSTEIN, A.R., D.B. WAKE, and W.P. SOUSA. 1994. Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8: 60-71. COOKE, A.S. 1972. Indications of recent changes in status in the British Isles of the frog (Rana temporaria) and the toad (Bufo bufo). Journal of Zoology: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 167: 161-178. ENGE, K.M. 1992. Herptile exploitation. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Section. Annual Report. FRANZ, R., and W. AUFFENBERG. 1978. The gopher tortoise: a declining species. Pp. 61-63, In R.R. Odum, and L. Landers (Eds.). Proceedings of the rare and endangered wildlife symposium. Game and Fish Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin WL4. GALLIGAN, J.H., and W.A. DUNSON. 1979. Biology and status of timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) populations in Pennsylvania. Biological Conservation 15: 13-58. JENNINGS, M.R., and M.P. HAYES. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii): the inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41: 94-103. LANNOO, M.J., K. LANG, T. WALTZ, and G.S. PHILLIPS. 1994. An altered amphibian assemblage: Dickinson County, Iowa, 70 years after Frank Blanchard s survey. American Midland Naturalist 131: 311-319. LEVELL, J.P. 1997. A Field Guide to Reptiles and the Law. 2nd edition. Serpent s Tale, Lanesboro, MN. MACMILLAN, S. 1987. The effect of harvesting on denning populations of the red-sided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) in the Interlake region of Manitoba. Masters Practicum, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Canada. McCOLLOUGH, M. 1997. Status and conservation of turtles in Maine. Pp. 7-10, In T. Tyning (Ed.). Status and conservation of turtles of the northeastern United States. Serpent s Tale, Lanesboro, MN.
PECHMANN, J.H.K., D.E. SCOTT, R.D. SEMLITSCH, J.P. CALDWELL, L.J. VITT, and J.W. GIBBONS. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253: 892-895. PHILLIPS, K. 1990. Where have all the frogs and toads gone? BioScience 40: 422-424. SPEAKE, D.W., J.A. McGLINCY, AND T.R. COLVIN. 1978. Ecology and management of the eastern indigo snake in Georgia: a progress report. Pp. 64-71, In R.R. Odum, and L. Landers (Eds.). Proceedings of the rare and endangered wildlife symposium. Game and Fish Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin WL4. TAYLOR, J. 1997. The status of turtles in New Hampshire. Pp. 4-5, In T. Tyning (Ed.). Status and conservation of turtles of the northeastern United States. Serpent s Tale, Lanesboro, MN. TYNING, T.F, (Ed.). 1997a. Statues and conservation of turtles in the northeastern United States. Serpent s Tale, Lanesboro, MN. TYNING, T.F 1997b. The quick decline of slow turtles. Pp. v-vii, In T.F. Tyning (Ed.). Status and conservation of turtles of the northeastern United States. Serpents Tale, Lanesboro, MN. (23511 characters)
TABLE 2. New York amphibian and reptile species sold in New York pet stores. Species a Stores selling/ Average number Average price b stores sampled sold per year b Dusky Salamander 1/37 N/A N/A Four-toed Salamander, 1/37 12 (1) $10.00 (1) Hemidactylium scutatum Hellbender (sc), 1/37 N/A N/A Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Jefferson Salamander (sc), 1/37 2 (1) N/A Ambystoma jeffersonianum Longtail Salamander (sc*), 1/37 12 (1) $10.00 (1) Eurycea longicauda Marbled Salamander (sc*), 4/37 9 (2) $12.00 (3) Ambystoma opacum Mudpuppy, Necturus maculosus 6/37 45 (4) $9.50 (4) Red Salamander, Pseudotriton ruber 2/37 75 (2) $3.00 (2) Redback Salamander, 1/37 100 (1) $4.00 (1) Plethodon cinereus Red-spotted Newt, 6/37 43 (5) $4.50 (4) Notophthalmus v. viridescens Spotted Salamander (sc), 4/37 10 (3) $7.00 (4) Ambystoma maculatum Tiger Salamander (e), 3/37 7 (2) $24.00 (3) Ambystoma tigrinum Two-lined Salamander, 1/37 10 (1) $13.00 (1) Eurycea bislineata American Toad, Bufo americanus 3/37 160 (2) $2.50 (2) Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana 4/37 162 (2) $8.00 (1) Bullfrog Tadpoles 6/37 55 (3) $1.80 (5) Eastern Spadefoot (sc*), 3/37 10 (2) $20.00 (1) Scaphiopus holbrookii Gray Treefrog, Hyla versicolor 4/37 40 (1) $8.50 (2) Green Frog, Rana clamitans 1/37 N/A N/A Leopard Frog 2/37 150 (1) N/A a e - endangered; g - fully protected game species; n - nonnative; sc - species of special concern; t - threatened; * - indicates ranking species did not have at time of survey, but is a proposed change in ranking. b N/A - information not provided by pet stores; number of stores providing information in parentheses
Northern Leopard Frog, 4/37 23 (4) $4.00 (4) Rana pipiens Southern Leopard Frog (sc), 1/37 500 (1) $6.00 (1) Rana sphenocephala utricularius Leopard Frog Tadpoles 1/37 N/A N/A Spring Peeper, 5/37 17 (3) $6.33 (3) Pseudacris c. crucifer Species a Stores selling/ Average number Average price b stores sampled sold per year b Wood Frog, Rana sylvatica 1/37 100 (1) $12.00 (1) Diamondback Terrapin (sc), 1/37 1 (1) $50.00 (1) Malaclemys terrapin Eastern Box Turtle (g)(sc*), 1/37 10 (1) N/A Terrapene c. carolina Map Turtle, Graptemys geographica 12/37 12 (8) $14.00 (8) Mud Turtle (t)(e*), 7/37 10 (5) $19.17 (6) Kinosternon subrubrum Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta 25/38 74 (15) $13.42 (19) Red-eared Slider (n), 39/41 90 (25) $11.67 (33) Trachemys scripta elegans Snapping Turtle, 3/37 N/A N/A Chelydra serpentina Spiny Softshell (sc*), 7/38 4 (3) $19.40 (5) Apalone spiniferus Stinkpot, Sternotherus odoratus 5/37 10 (3) $11.00 (1) Wood Turtle (g)(sc), 3/37 1 (1) $25.00 (2) Clemmys insculpta Five-lined Skink, Eumeces fasciatus 6/37 10 (3) $8.50 (2) Northern Fence Lizard (t*), 2/37 10 (1) $10.00 (1) Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus Ruin Lizard (n), Podarcis sicula 1/37 10 (1) $18.00 (1) Brown Snake, Storeria dekayi 1/37 N/A N/A a e - endangered; g - fully protected game species; n - nonnative; sc - species of special concern; t - threatened; * - indicates ranking species did not have at time of survey, but is a proposed change in ranking. b N/A - information not provided by pet stores; number of stores providing information in parentheses
Common Garter Snake, 12/38 123 (6) $10.75 (8) Thamnophis sirtalis Eastern Hognose Snake (sc), 5/37 2 (3) $83.33 (3) Heterdon platyrhinos Eastern Ribbon Snake, 4/37 305 (2) $11.50 (2) Thamnophis sauritus Milk Snake, 7/37 28 (4) $62.50 (4) Lampropeltis triangulum Northern Water Snake, 3/37 15 (2) $22.50 (2) Nerodia s. sipedon Racer, Coluber constrictor 1/37 N/A N/A Rat Snake, Elaphe obsoleta 9/37 7 (4) $42.50 (4) Ringneck Snake, 1/37 N/A N/A Smooth Green Snake, 3/37 N/A N/A Liochlorophis vernalis
TABLE 1. Legislation regarding herpetofauna in nine northeastern states, in order from most restrictive to least resctrictive Total number Number of species Can unprotected Can unprotected species be species be of herps protected collected for collected for from any commercial noncommercial collection reasons? reasons? Connecticut 48 a 43 No Only 5 game species New Jersey 75 b 66 No Only 4 game species Massachusetts 51 b 24 No Yes c Pennsylvania 76 11 No Yes c Rhode Island 44 a 11 No Yes Maine 37 a 7 Yes d Yes New York 74 a 14 Yes Yes New Hampshire 40 5 Yes Yes Vermont 40 5 Yes Yes a Includes sea turtles b Includes sea turtles and nonnative species c Possession of native, nongame, unprotected species limited to two individuals of each species d Except snakes and turtles