Toward a scientific understanding of the international tiger trade: Response to Kolby and Weissgold (2022)

Kolby and Weissgold (2022) misinterpreted the goal of our paper that “approach[ed] the tiger trade from a crime science perspective … to investigate the extent and attributes of tiger parts entering the United States” (Khanwilkar et al., 2022, p. 3) with available data. There is scientific uncertainty in the LEMIS database but we refute the misinterpretation of our paper as a “handling of certain wildlife trade data points as objective scientific values, when they are not” (Kolby & Weissgold, 2022, p. 2). We clearly stated that “unstructured observational data, such as seizure incidents, are biased (Dobson et al., 2020)” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 11). We acknowledged the shortcomings of trade analyses using seizure data and were clear in our theoretical approach of LEMIS data, which has been widely used to characterize wildlife trade patterns (Harrington et al., 2020; Hitchens & Blakeslee, 2020; Petrossian et al., 2016; Petrossian et al., 2020; Rhyne et al., 2017; Sosnowski & Petrossian, 2020). Our conclusions were presented as a “preliminary overview” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 3) to guide future research. We stated that “understanding the true scale of tiger trafficking into the United States and current trends in global trade will require additional research” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 8) and further described the need to verify seizure records with forensic DNA analysis in our paper. Forensic genetics are needed to verify information from seizure records. This is true for all work that tracks the demand and trade routes of trafficked tiger parts using seizure data that had not undergone forensic evaluation, including work by the United Nations, Environmental Investigation Agency, and TRAFFIC (e.g., EIA, 2020; Stoner et al., 2016; UNODC, 2020; Verheij et al., 2010; Wong & Krishnasamy, 2019). Seizure data “reveal detection patterns that may not necessarily reflect true trade volumes and patterns” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 11); for example, an estimated 10 percent of illegally traded great apes are seized by law enforcement (Stiles et al., 2013). Kolby and Weissgold (2022) present no forensically evaluated data of their own to support their claim that we exaggerated the scale of parts entering the United States from 2003 to 2012. Improved estimation of illegal tiger trade within and across countries and globally will require a combination of evidence from seizures and refined forensic analysis and expanded, interdisciplinary research in supply, transit, and demand countries. Furthermore, Kolby and Weissgold's (2022) forensic genetic recommendations are not novel (Nittu et al., 2022; Nowell, 2000; Wetton et al., 2004). They do not address the accuracy or feasibility of implementing methods at a scale sufficient to analyze a decade of seized tiger parts entering the United States. While their suggested method to verify species may be a priority for law enforcement, such insights provide no details on the source or origin of parts or products (Nittu et al., 2022). There is ongoing work to develop accurate and accessible forensic tools that can reliably and affordably evaluate the presence of tiger and identify individual animals in trafficked products such as highly processed traditional medicines (Project TigrisID: Results, 2022). Our review of the only existing data on US tiger trade provides a foundation; future work will require broad financial and logistical support, including access to seized items and reference genetic data from wild and captive populations. Our article outlined the procedures used by law enforcement during seizure incidents, which are recorded as unstructured observational data in the USFWS LEMIS database. They are not verified with forensic evidence. We conducted informal interviews with current USFWS personnel to understand the agency's methods used to identify and document tiger parts entering the United States, outlined in “Section 2.2 Seizure and permitting procedures” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 4). Kolby and Weissgold (2022) stated that “USFWS often lists “wild” as a default source code when no source is specified by the importer” (Kolby & Weissgold, 2022, p. 1). Current USFWS personnel reported to us that “the source and origin of seized tigers and parts is not assessed or assumed without obvious indications or accompanying verbal or written documentation or declaration (US Fish and Wildlife Service personal communication, May 13, 2021)” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 4). It is unknown how many products were designated as wild sourced because of contextual clues or by default and “forensic methods can overcome such limitations in seizure records” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 9). It is important to note that procedural details, including source code information provided by Kolby and Weissgold (2022), are largely unavailable to anyone not currently or formerly employed by the USFWS. We disagree with Kolby and Weissgold's (2022) assertion that “despite the presence of tiger trade violations in the USFWS LEMIS data for TCM products, this is not scientific evidence of tiger trade” (Kolby & Weissgold, 2022, p. 1). We consider this to be a limited definition of tiger trade that neglects to account for global trade dynamics in fake parts and products. We recognized that “it was not possible to approximate how many tigers were seized without an ingredient list or production information for medicinal products (Wong & Krishnasamy, 2019)” (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022, p. 11). While verifying the presence of tiger in seized items may be a priority for law enforcement, discounting available data on tiger trade violations is a narrow perspective. Specifically, consumers buy medicinal products marketed and labeled as containing wild or captive tiger without knowing the true contents. While fake products are common in the tiger trade, as Kolby and Weissgold (2022) recognized, we found that 18,731 medicinal products were identified as a part of the tiger trade and seized entering the United States between 2002 and 2012 (Khanwilkar, Sosnowski & Guynup, 2022). We agree with Kolby and Weissgold (2022) that these products may or may not contain “genuine presence of tiger” (Kolby & Weissgold, 2022, p. 1), but verified or not, these products are marketed as tiger to consumers globally. Future forensic genetics research that verifies product ingredients will provide a more complete understanding of availability and trade. Questions remain about the role of fake products and items sourced from captive tigers in driving actual consumption and consumer behavior in the United States. Alison Skidmore and anonymous reviewers provided helpful input. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No new primary data were collected for this manuscript.