Investigating Support for Management of the Pet Trade Invasion Risk

Abstract

The non‐native pet trade contributes directly to species invasions, thereby threatening wildlife. Biological invasions influence environmental change, resulting in species extinctions and biodiversity loss. To mitigate the pet trade invasion risk, interventions are required to prevent trade in non‐native animals with high invasion potential, impulse or ill‐informed purchases of non‐native pets by individuals who may release these animals, and the deliberate release of non‐native animals by pet owners. Interventions are also required to prevent the establishment of non‐native animals that have been released by pet owners (e.g., euthanasia). The successful implementation of these interventions depends on the support of pet owners and the public in the form of political support for, and compliance with, interventions. In 2017–2018, using both mail and online surveys, we measured the support of 1,171 members of the public and 550 owners of non‐native pets in Florida, USA, for 7 different interventions to mitigate the pet trade invasion risk, and we investigated determinants of this support. We found that individuals' support for interventions depended on their concern related to the invasion risks associated with the pet trade, trust in government to manage the pet trade, perceptions of how effective interventions would be in mitigating the pet trade invasion risk, and demographic characteristics. Support for interventions differed across pet owners and the public. Educating pet owners about the traits and cost of care for non‐native animals and providing them with options to relinquish unwanted pets may reduce the pet trade invasion risk. Engaging the pet trade in the design of interventions to mitigate invasion risks is likely important to attain voluntary compliance with these interventions. The effectiveness of interventions also depends on enforcement by agencies. Implementing interventions that effectively reduce the pet trade invasion risk is important to protect native and endangered wildlife. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Investigating public support for biosecurity measures to mitigate pathogen transmission through the herpetological trade

“…found some, albeit limited, evidence that women and Hispanic or Latino members of the public were more sensitive to risks associated with the live herpetological trade, whereas more educated individuals were less sensitive to these risks [24]. Rather, respondents' risk perceptions and values played a key role in determining their support for biosecurity, which is consistent with previous findings that the public's attitudes, beliefs, and risk perceptions are stronger determinants of their support for managing invasion risks associated with the live animal trade than their demographic characteristics [53,54]. Our finding that respondents' socio-psychological characteristics were key determinants of their support for biosecurity has important implications for communications and messaging about biosecurity.…”

Understanding the demand for and value of pathogen‐free amphibians to US pet owners

“…Other demographic characteristics were not significant predictors of the likelihood of paying a premium. This is in line with similar studies that have found attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of risk to be stronger predictors than demographic characteristics of individuals' support for managing risks associated with the live animal trade (Episcopio-Sturgeon & Pienaar, 2020;Steele & Pienaar 2021).…”

“…Pet owners have demonstrated their interest in paying for preventative care for their pets and companion animals (e.g., Chiu et al, 2021; Paul III & Skiba, 2012). The public has also been shown to support interventions related to invasive species (Gramza et al, 2016; Episcopio‐Sturgeon & Pienaar, 2020) and generally places importance on protecting the health of native wildlife and nature from pathogens transmitted through the reptile and amphibian trades (Pienaar et al, 2022). These findings suggest pet amphibian owners may value, and be willing to pay a premium for, CPF animals to mitigate pathogen threats.…”

Turning Negatives into Positives for Pet Trading and Keeping: A Review of Positive Lists

“…A notable example is the Burmese python ( Python molurus bivittatus ) which, following its popularity in the pet trade, has become established in south Florida as an apex predator and causes declines in native wild animal populations [ 119 ]. The Burmese python is only one of at least 140 non-native amphibians and reptiles that had been introduced into Florida by 2010, almost 85% of which had arrived via the pet trade [ 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 ]. By 2015, an additional 38 invasive alien species had been recorded [ 124 ].…”