sign in sign up
<<
Home , Crocodile skin, Hide (skin)

Issues in International Conservation

Crocodile Tears and : International Trade, Economic Constraints, and Limits to the Sustainable Use of Crocodilians

Over the past three decades, the limited market, and competition from suited for , the of captive rearing and managed har- other, cheaper exotic skins (e.g., os- declined during the 1820s, vests of crocodilians have been held trich) presents an unsettled future for but during the American Civil War up as a success story in the search crocodilian management programs (1861–1865) a naval blockade of for balanced, sustainable use of wild- based entirely on the commercial southern U.S. ports created a short- life and the generation of wildlife consumptive use of their skins. This age of cowhide and revived the use products for international trade. The boom-and-bust cycle and fears for the of for boots and sad- success of managed-harvest programs lack of market elasticity demonstrate dles. Crocodilian skins first became in the United States, Zimbabwe, the vulnerability of conservation pro- fashionable shortly after the Civil War Papua New Guinea, and Venezuela grams based entirely or primarily on (Glasgow 1991) and since that time encouraged similar efforts in a variety the sale of wildlife products for es- have been used for the elaboration of of other countries: by the late 1980s, sentially luxury markets. a variety of exotic leather products, more than 40 nations had crocodilian The history of the international from and to wallets and management programs based on some trade in crocodilians provides un- belts. The demand for skins, and the form of regulated commercial use usual, perhaps unique, insights into hunting of wild populations, has fol- (Thorbjarnarson 1992). In the 1980s, the value and limits of a sustainable- lowed the typical boom-and-bust cy- as rose, trade in crocodilian use approach to conservation. I re- cle of unregulated resource hunting, skins was a lucrative business and the view the history of the exploitation often dictated by the health of the sustainable-use approach was touted of crocodilians and the effects of that economies of consumer nations and as a practical solution for the conser- exploitation on the conservation sta- the whims of the industry. vation of what was generally seen as tus of species involved in trade. Exotic leather swept into Eu- an unlovable group of animals (Mes- rope by the late 1800s, and to meet sel 1991; Ross 1995). the growing demand the hunt- In the early 1990s, a weakened mar- ing business expanded into Mexico, ket and falling skin prices created Unregulated Commercial Central America, and the Caribbean. cause for alarm (Woodward et al. Hunting By the 1930s, many of the skins 1994). After a brief recovery, prices tanned in Europe came from north- nose-dived again in 1997–1998, largely For over a century, the skins of croc- ern South America. Following World as a result of widespread economic odilians have been used for the man- War II and the rebuilding of the Euro- woes in Asia, a primary consumer of ufacture of exotic leather products, pean industry, the demand crocodilian skin products. The drop and the resulting commercial hunt- for skins redoubled and hunting re- in skin prices has caused great eco- ing has led to drastic population sumed in the Neotropics and spread nomic hardship for many skin produc- declines and the designation of the into Africa, Asia, and Australia. ers, leading to the closure of some sus- majority of these modern-day archo- For many species, hunting was in- tainable-use management programs. saurs as endangered species. In the tense and quickly resulted in the Although fluctuations in supply, de- early 1800s, the first large-scale com- depletion of wild populations. In Lou- mand, and skin prices have been mercial use of crocodilian skins re- isiana an estimated 3–3.5 million alli- characteristic of past, largely unreg- sulted in the widespread hunting gators were killed between 1880 and ulated exploitation of crocodilians, of the American alligator (Alligator 1933 (McIlhenny 1935). From 1950 to today the increased, steady produc- mississipiensis) in the United States 1965, 7.5 million skins were tion of skins from a large number of (Joanen et al. 1997). Because the exported from Amazonas State in sustainable-use programs, a relatively leather did not prove to be well Brazil (Smith 1980). By 1980 Medem 465

Conservation Biology, Pages 465–470 Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999

466 Issues in International Conservation

(1981) calculated that a minimum of hunting initiated a phase of popula- wildlife management, which greatly 11.65 million caiman skins had been tion recovery. Although this was restricted their ability to document exported from Colombia. In South most dramatic in the case of the the recovery or current status of wild America, the annual number of caiman American alligator, the recovery of populations. Many African nations also exploited during the 1980s was esti- other species such as Morelet’s croc- argued that their populations of Nile mated to be in excess of 1 million (M. odile (C. moreletii), the Australian had never been endan- Jenkins & Broad 1994). freshwater (C. johnsoni), gered and should not have been listed and the Nile (C. niloticus) and saltwa- on CITES Appendix I in the first place ter (C. porosus) crocodiles (Ross (Hutton 1992). The desire of these 1998) has demonstrated the benefits African nations to commercially man- Trade Controls and of increased protection worldwide. age Nile crocodiles added to a dia- Population Recovery logue within CITES over the value of commercial trade to promote “value- A variety of national and international added” conservation. restrictions on hunting and trade have Managed Use Battles For crocodiles, what resulted was been enacted over the last 30 years, Trade Restrictions a series of CITES resolutions that and populations of a variety of once- loosened the requirements for legal overexploited species are recovering Beginning in the mid-1960s and trade, either by promoting crocodile (Messel 1991; Ross 1998). Beginning early 1970s, the United States and ranching programs or by establish- in the 1960s, the scarcity of skins Zimbabwe sought to develop manage- ing temporary CITES-approved an- also had significant effects on the ment plans that included the harvest nual export quotas of skins from reptile leather business: many tanner- of growing crocodilian populations cropping programs. Ranching was ies closed, purchased illegal crocodil- (Child 1987; Joanen et al. 1997). Dur- seen as a robust management ap- ian skins, or switched to the hides of ing the same period another managed- proach that had few biological risks other reptiles, including sea turtles, liz- harvest program was launched in for wild populations, and the harvest ards, and snakes (King 1978). With the Papua New Guinea, where, as a re- quotas were designed as an interim adoption of the Convention on Inter- sult of large expanses of habitat and measure to provide nations with the fi- national Trade in Endangered Spe- low human population densities, the nancial resources to implement man- cies of Flora and Fauna (CITES) in crocodile populations had never agement programs based on ranch- 1975, the first steps were taken to been considered endangered (Hol- ing, and eventually lead to the full regulate wildlife trade at an interna- lands 1987). The recovery of popu- downlisting of the country’s crocodile tional level. Nevertheless, because of lations from overhunting and the population to Appendix II. The CITES the high demand for skins, consider- success of these three programs dem- Secretariat, working with crocodilian able illegal trade continued (Inskipp onstrated that crocodilians could be biologists Crocodile Specialist Group & Wells 1979). managed on a sustainable-use basis. of the World Conservation Union– Despite the considerable economic But despite the growing capacity of Species Survival Commission (IUCN– incentives to kill crocodilians, in any nations to harvest crocodilians sus- SSC), played an important role in one region commercial hunting usu- tainably, the commercial success of providing funds and technical assis- ally was no longer productive long sustainable-use programs depended tance that allowed African nations to before populations reached levels largely on the skin-producing coun- develop proposals for managed use close to biological extinction, so no tries being able to export hides to under the CITES guidelines. By the species has gone extinct as a result of countries where skins could be tanned 1990s, Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, So- hunting. Where habitat loss has been a and manufactured into products. malia, Sudan, South Africa, Botswana, significant factor, however, commer- After 1975 CITES regulations pro- Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozam- cial hunting or the killing of unwanted hibited international commercial trade bique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Uganda animals has led to a crisis situation. To- in endangered animals, which in- had taken advantage of these resolu- day, the most critically endangered cluded alligators and nearly all the tions to export crocodile skins. crocodilians, including the Chinese al- true crocodiles (CITES Appendix I). In the New World, the large ongo- ligator (A. sinensis) and the Philippine In the United States, the dramatic ing trade in caiman skins resulted in a (C. mindorensis) and Siamese (C. sia- and well-documented recovery of al- different pattern of crocodilian trade mensis) crocodiles, are the victims of ligator populations resulted in that and managed use. Caiman (common past over-hunting and current habitat species being downlisted to CITES caiman [Caiman crocodilus] and yac- loss (Ross 1998). Nonetheless, among Appendix II in 1979, thereby allow- are [C. yacare]) skins were long con- most species for which habitat loss ing regulated commercial trade. In sidered to be inferior to the “classic” was not a significant factor, the re- many developing nations, however, crocodile and alligator skins because duction or elimination of commercial only limited funds were available for they contained bony osteoderms in

Conservation Biology Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999

Issues in International Conservation 467 the ventral “belly” scales that compli- ranchers to skins traders, tanners, and of skins and did not endanger the sta- cated tanning and produced a pitted leather manufacturers. In Louisiana tus of wild populations (David 1994). and discolored appearance in the fin- the sale of alligator meat and skins Skin traders and tanners who dealt ished skins. Due to the scarcity of clas- was $25 million per year in the early largely in illegal skins in the 1970s sic skins, however, the sides or flanks 1990s ( Joanen et al. 1997). In Vene- shifted more and more to legal skins of Neotropical caiman became the zuela the peak export value (in 1990) as the supply increased and as CITES mainstay of the reptile leather industry was approximately $25 million. Al- trade controls were enforced more in the 1960s. By the late 1970s, the though it is difficult to quantify the rigorously. By the late 1980s, it was more rigid CITES controls on classic role of economic benefits in generat- evident that illegal trade in classic skin species provided further incen- ing conservation incentives among lo- skins had been significantly reduced tives to trade caiman skins. cal communities and landowners, it is (Collins & Luxmoore 1996). Although As a result of the large demand for clear that at the national level croco- illegal caiman trade remained a com- caiman skins, the scarcity of legal dilian management is given a higher plex problem, the adoption of the Uni- sources, the low prices of illegal priority because of its economic po- versal Tagging Resolutions by CITES in skins, and the inability of countries tential (Child 1987). Commercial use 1992 and 1994 has provided an impor- to adequately regulate export and can also generate a more positive im- tant tool for identifying the origin of imports, a complex web of illegal age of crocodilians among the general skins and regulating trade (Collins & trade in caiman skins emerged (Me- populace, and, through the use of sev- Luxmoore 1996); all evidence points dem 1980; Gaski & Hemley 1988). erance fees and taxes, these programs to a significant decline in illegal caiman Prior to 1984, CITES export statis- can generate funds for cash-strapped trade over the last 10 years. tics—which do not take into consider- wildlife management agencies, as was Unlike the historical patterns of ation the illegal and undeclared trade the case in Venezuela. commercial hunting in which short- of skins—demonstrate that Ͻ20% of Within the context of CITES, suc- term profits were the primary objec- the caiman trade was even po- cess has largely been the result of a tive, today’s managed harvests are tentially legal (Luxmoore et al. 1988). carrot-and-stick approach of restrict- based on an understanding of the Although both common and yacare ing illegal and excessive trade and population biology of the species in- caiman are widespread and ecologi- working with national management volved and adopt sustainability as cally adaptable species, exports in ex- authorities to develop harvest pro- their primary objective. The monitor- cess of one million skins a year led to grams that comply with CITES regu- ing of harvested populations is gener- concern about the effects of the un- lations (R. W. G. Jenkins 1987; David ally given a high priority among croc- managed harvest on wild populations 1994). One of the biggest obstacles odile sustainable-use programs (Ross and underlined the need for pro- for the successful development of 1997). Although a basic understand- grams based on a managed harvest. managed-harvest programs was the ing of the effects of the harvest on Venezuela was the first country to continued traffic of skins from illegal wild populations is available for only initiate a large-scale, legal cropping or unmanaged harvests. Both the a few areas, harvests have been de- program for caiman. Soon after Vene- dwindling supplies of skins and signed to minimize the negative de- zuela’s program was begun, Hondu- CITES trade restrictions, however, mographic effects (in most cases by ras, Nicaragua, Guyana, Paraguay, and set the stage for collaboration with targeting juveniles or adult males), Colombia initiated the large-scale pro- the reptile leather industry and na- and most evidence suggests that duction of skins from a farming, or tional management authorities to hunting levels have been set within captive-breeding, program. As in the promote the supply of legal skins sustainable levels (Ross 1998). In case of , CITES and the from managed-harvest programs and Australia and the United States, de- IUCN–SSC Crocodile Specialist Group reduce illegal trade (Messel 1991). tailed population monitoring and played an important role by working Pressure from CITES resulted in ecological research programs have with national management authorities national laws enacting trade con- demonstrated that harvested croco- to conduct caiman population surveys trols, changes that were sometimes dilian populations can continue to and by recommending export quotas. a result of threatened or enacted grow (Webb et al. 1994; Woodward CITES trade bans on noncompliant et al. 1994; Joanen et. al 1997). nations (e.g., Italy, Thailand). Work- Sustainable-Use Successes ing through the CITES Secretariat, and largely with funding from the Local Benefits and the Crocodilian sustainable-use programs reptile leather industry, the Croco- Conservation Implications of have become a profitable wildlife dile Specialist Group acted through Farming versus Harvesting business worldwide, with a wide va- a network of crocodilian experts to riety of stakeholders ranging from assist nations to plan and implement Many of the potential conservation hunters, skinners, landowners, and programs that provided a legal source benefits of crocodilian sustainable-

Conservation Biology Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999

468 Issues in International Conservation use programs are a potential who work at the feeding ani- Funding Opportunities versus threat from the expansion of farm- mals or cleaning pens, there is little Conservation Priorities in ing, or captive-breeding, programs. opportunity for local communities Crocodilian Management The theoretical underpinning of sus- to benefit economically from . tainable use as a conservation tool is Yet, because they are self-contained based largely on the creation of in- operations and do not depend on For both the classic skin-producing centives that make the conservation the vagaries of wild egg production, species (crocodiles and alligators) of wildlife populations and their farms may offer certain advantages and caiman, the CITES Secretariat habitat in the best interest of those for businessmen interested in selling and the CSG have worked closely who benefit from the harvest. For crocodile skins. For instance, in Zim- with national management authori- crocodilians it is argued that man- babwe, which pioneered the ranch- ties to develop programs that limit aged harvests provide benefits to ing of Nile crocodiles, recent difficul- production to sustainable levels. several constituencies, including lo- ties working with communal groups Funding, largely from the reptile cal people who would otherwise have led many crocodile ranchers to leather industry, has supported pop- balk at the idea of sharing their back- turn more and more to farming, and ulation surveys to develop proposals yards with large, potentially danger- now in excess of 50% of annual skin to downlist populations to CITES ous carnivores (Ross 1995). How production comes from farmed ani- Appendix II and allow commercial sustainable-use programs benefit lo- mals (Crocodile Specialist Group exports (classic species) or to rec- cal communities or landowners and 1998). ommend export quotas for caiman. how these benefits are affected by Farms are a major source of legal Through agreements with CITES and the attributes of the program, the skins in the market today. Presently, the Crocodile Specialist Group, sur- relative value of the harvest, and the greatest volume of crocodile veys of crocodilian populations were land-tenure systems are important skins from any one country come conducted in Honduras, Nicaragua, but have rarely been addressed. In from Colombia, where caiman farms Cuba, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil, Bo- Venezuela landowners can receive a are exporting nearly half a million livia, Paraguay, Argentina, Botswana, high return on their investment har- skins a year (Collins & Luxmoore Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozam- vesting caiman, but this is done pri- 1996). The potentially negative eco- bique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Indo- marily within the context of managing nomic impacts of large numbers of nesia. Because of the focus on pro- their lands for . Caiman are seen farm skins on the commercial viabil- grams to allow legal exports, the largely as a quick and easy source of ity of sustainable-use cropping and funding was devoted almost exclu- money but not a major factor in de- harvesting programs are unclear but sively to four species of commercial ciding land-use practices. On the are bound to intensify as farms pro- interest: the common caiman, the other hand, ranching programs can liferate and competition increases yacare caiman, the Nile crocodile, and generate important sources of funds for crocodilian-skin market niches. the . In addition, for rural communities that collect The international trade of live ani- nations with developed sustainable- eggs or neonates (Ross 1995). mals for farm breeding stock has also use programs, such as the United Although ranching and cropping led to the widespread establishment States, Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, programs have inherent potential for of crocodile farms with non-native and Australia, used their own funds generating these incentives, closed- crocodilians, reducing the potential for population monitoring and eco- cycle breeding, or farming, programs for developing sustainable-use pro- logical research programs for com- do not. Farms are closed-cycle opera- grams based on native species and mercially exploited crocodilians. As tions in which captive adult animals increasing the likelihood of intro- a result, a flood of information on lay eggs that produce the farm’s ducing exotic species through es- the status and ecology of the main stock. Ranches rely on the collection capes. Farming also has the potential species in commercial trade emerged of eggs or neonates from the wild. to lead to specialization and genetic in the 1980s and 1990s. Farms can be economically success- improvements of stock, which, given Although significant funds were ful operations that generate political the limited demand for skins, could available for surveys of the trade spe- interest in crocodilians and can pro- potentially reduce or eliminate the cies, at the same time the highly en- vide wildlife educational opportuni- value of wild harvests. One example dangered crocodilians were being ties for the public, but they are not is the interbreeding of saltwater and virtually ignored except for a few naturally linked with the mainte- Siamese crocodiles in a farm in Thai- small to modest projects supported nance of wild populations and their land that produced hybrids that grow through conservation groups (Thor- habitat and so do not generate the faster, have superior hides, and are bjarnarson 1992). The result was a economic links for conservation that commercially preferable to either of topsy-turvy situation in which con- form the basis of sustainable-use pro- the parent species (Youngprapakorn servation funds were scarce for grams. Other than the few people 1990). highly threatened species such as

Conservation Biology Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999

Issues in International Conservation 469 the Orinoco crocodile (Crocodylus 1994). The result was a significant re- contributing factor (e.g., the Chi- intermedius) and the Chinese alliga- duction in purchases of crocodilian nese alligator and Philippine croco- tor, and in which the main focus of skins, with major repercussions for dile). For the most part, the focus on the efforts and the funding of CITES crocodilian management programs sustainable use has shifted the atten- and the Crocodile Specialist Group based on commercial use. Harvest tion of crocodilian managers away were the species with the lowest con- levels in Venezuela were drastically from highly threatened species to servation priorities. Although some of curtailed (Thorbjarnarson & Velasco the more common ones with high their efforts were subsequently car- 1998), and in Brazil a large number commercial value. The limited and ried out on threatened species (Croco- of caiman ranches closed (W. Mag- provisional success of this approach dile Specialist Group 1992), the fo- nusson, personal communication). notwithstanding, we must identify cus of these and other efforts remained Prices rebounded in the mid-1990s, and develop national and interna- on conservation through commercial but declined again sharply in 1997– tional mechanisms that allow the use. One recent exception to this pat- 1998 as a result of an economic slow- economic benefits derived from sus- tern has been funding from the reptile down in Japan; the financial crisis in a tainable-use programs for the rela- leather industry for surveys and eco- number of Asia nations, including Sin- tively abundant species to be used to logical studies of the Malayan gapore, Indonesia, and Thailand, and benefit conservation activities for (Tomistoma schlegelii) in Indonesia the resulting weakened exchange highly endangered species. (Bezuijen et al. 1997), which, it is rates; declining prices of ostrich skins Attempts to establish conservation hoped, can serve as a model for simi- (which compete with reptile leather); programs for crocodilians based en- lar efforts with other species. and an abnormally increased supply tirely on sustainable use show that of skins, particularly from Papua New the “sustainability” of this approach Guinea, where the El Niño drought is ultimately dependent on the va- Limits to Sustainable resulted in a larger than normal har- garies of the exotic reptile leather Use of Crocodilians vest (Koh 1998). The effects of the market, a market that appears to be recent downturn in prices remains to cyclical and not solely related to the As the number of crocodilian har- be seen, but already there are reports production of skins. The importance vest programs proliferated, the sup- that ranching programs in Botswana, of this last fact has yet to be gauged ply of legal skins increased. By the Mozambique, Malawi, Uganda, and but argues strongly that countries mid-1990s, trade in classic skins was Ethiopia have closed or are about to with have crocodilian sustainable- approaching the historical high of (Crocodile Specialist Group 1998). use programs, or those that want to 500,000 skins a year, and the caiman The history of crocodilian managed- establish them, must be increasingly trade remains in excess of 1 million harvest programs shows both the ad- critical of programs aimed solely at skins a year (World Conservation vantages and disadvantages of an ap- skins and should examine ways to Monitoring Centre 1998). At the proach based on sustainable use. The diversify into local meat production same time, market demand for rep- demand for products or other industries that add value, tile leather products has remained made commercial management of the particularly local value, to the har- relatively stable (Ashely 1998) and is more common species an attractive vest. In addition, programs should facing increasing competition from alternative for businesspeople and na- give more attention to nonconsump- other exotic such as ostrich tional wildlife management authori- tive uses such as ecotourism. For (Takehara 1998.). In most markets, ties. Over the last 20 years the success crocodilians in particular, and proba- crocodilian skin prices rose through- of these approaches can be measured bly for managed populations of wild- out the 1980s but fell sharply in by the number of nations that began life of potential high value in general, 1991–1992. The drop in skin prices managed harvests, the global shift a single, economically based ap- was a worldwide event for all croco- from mostly illegal to legal skins, the proach to conservation will remain dilians traded commercially and has amount of research and population susceptible to market forces in a been attributed to a number of fac- monitoring of commercially man- world in which market forces are im- tors, including low demand for prod- aged species, and the population re- perfect and short-term vagaries can ucts in Japan, a poor world econ- covery of a variety of crocodilian spe- grossly undermine the long-term con- omy, consumer resistance to wildlife cies (Messel 1991; Ross 1995). servation goals of these programs. products, a paucity of manufactur- The limitations of a sustainable-use ing facilities worldwide, an imbal- approach to management of croco- ance of production and consump- dilians are evident in the lack of ef- Acknowledgments tion in the United States, a ban on fectiveness this approach has shown wildlife trade with Italy, and over- in dealing with the most highly en- While recognizing that they did not supply of skins worldwide (van dangered crocodilians, particularly always agree with everything said, I Jaarsveldt 1992; Woodward et al. where habitat loss has been a major wish to thank J. Robinson, P. Ross,

Conservation Biology Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999

470 Issues in International Conservation and W. Magnusson for providing in- of the CITES Nile crocodile project to the drilianos. Pages 19–32 in A. Larriera and sights and comments on this . CITES Secretariat as presented to the Par- L. M. Verdade, editors. La conservación y ties at the seventh meeting of the Confer- manejo de caimanes y cocodrilos de ence of the Parties, Lausanne, Switzerland, América Latina. Volume 1. Fundación John Thorbjarnarson 1989. Pages 169–214 in J. M. Hutton and I. Banco Bica, Santo Tomé, Argentina. Games, editors. Committee on Interna- Ross, P. 1997. Biological basis and application Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern tional Trade in Endangered Species, of sustainable use for the conservation of Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A., email Gland, Switzerland. crocodilians. Pages 182–187 in Memorias [email protected] Inskipp, T., and S. Wells. 1979. International de la 4ta. Reunion Regional del Grupo de trade in wildlife. International Institute for Especialistas de Cocodrilos de America Literature Cited Environment and Development and the Latina y el Caribe. Centro Regional de Ino- Fauna Preservation Society, Earthscan, vación Agroindustrial, S.C. Villahermosa, Ashely, D. 1998. Foreword and overview. In- London. Tabasco, Mexico. ternational alligator crocodile trade study. Jenkins, M., and S. Broad. 1994. International Ross, P., editor. 1998. Crocodiles. Status survey World Conservation Monitoring Centre, trade in reptile skins. A review of the main and conservation action plan. 2nd edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom. consumer markets, 1983–1991. TRAFFIC Crocodile Specialist Group, World Conser- Bezuijen, M. R., P. Hartoyo, M. Elliot, and International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. vation Union, Gland, Switzerland. B. A. Baker. 1997. Project Tomistoma: sec- Jenkins, R. W. G. 1987. The world conserva- Smith, N. J. H. 1980. , capybaras, ot- ond report on the ecology of the false tion strategy and CITES. Principles for the ters, manatees, and man in Amazonia. Bio- gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii) in Sumatra. management of crocodilians. Pages 27–31 logical Conservation 19:177–187. Wildlife Management International, Sand- in G. J. W. Webb, S.C. Manolis, and P. Takehara, Y. 1998. Crocodile skin market in erson, Australia. Whitehead, editors. Wildlife management: Japan. Pages 241–242 in Crocodiles. Pro- Child, G. 1987. The management of crocodiles crocodiles and alligators. Surrey Beatty ceedings of the 14th working meeting of in Zimbabwe. Pages 49–62 in G. J. W. and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. the Crocodile Specialist Group. World Webb, S. C. Manolis, and P. Whitehead, ed- Joanen, T., L. McNease, R. M. Elsy, and M. A. Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. itors. Wildlife management: crocodiles and Staton. 1997. The commercial consump- Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1992. Crocodiles. An ac- alligators. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping tive use of the American alligator (Alliga- tion plan for their conservation. H. Mes- Norton, Australia. tor mississippiensis) in Louisiana: its ef- sel, F. W. King, and P. Ross, editors. World Collins, L., and R. Luxmoore. 1996. World fect on conservation. Pages 465–506 in Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. trade in crocodilian skins, 1992–1993. C. H. Freese, editor. Harvesting wild spe- Thorbjarnarson, J. B., and A. Velasco. 1998. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, cies. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Venezuela’s caiman harvest program. An Cambridge, United Kingdom. Baltimore, Maryland. historical perspective and analysis of its Crocodile Specialist Group. 1992. Crocodile King, F. W. 1978. The wildlife trade. Pages conservation benefits. Wildlife Conserva- conservation action. Special publication 253–271 in H. P. Brokaw, editor. Wildlife tion Society working paper 11. New York, of the Crocodile Specialist Group. World and America. Council on Environmental NY. Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Quality, Washington, D.C. van Jaarsveldt, K. 1992. Trade group report. Crocodile Specialist Group. 1998. Steering Koh, C. H. 1998. Asia report. Pages 233–240 Crocodile Specialist Group Newsletter committee of the Crocodile Specialist in Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 14th 11(3):2–3. Group, 13 July 1998. Crocodile Specialist working meeting of the Crocodile Special- Webb, G. J. W., S. C. Manolis, and B. Otley. Group Newsletter 17(2):7–13. ist Group. World Conservation Union, 1994. Crocodile management and re- David, D. N. 1994. Harvesting wild crocodil- Gland, Switzerland. search in the Northern Territory: 1992– ians: guidelines for developing a sustain- Luxmoore, R., B. Groombridge, and S. Broad. 1994. Pages 167–180 in Crocodiles. Pro- able use program. Pages 274–309 in Croc- 1988. Significant trade in wildlife. A re- ceedings of the 12th working meeting of odiles. Volume 1. Proceedings of the 12th view of selected species in CITES Appen- the Crocodile Specialist Group. World working meeting of the Crocodile Special- dix II. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. ist Group. The World Conservation Union, Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Woodward, A. R., D. N. David, and R. L. Deg- Gland, Switzerland. McIlhenny, E. A. 1935. The alligator’s life his- ner. 1994. The rise and fall of classic croc- Gaski, A. L., and G. Hemley. 1988. The ups tory. The Christopher Publishing House, odilian skin prices: where do we go from and downs of the crocodilian skin trade. Boston. here? Pages 577–592 in Crocodiles. Pro- TRAFFIC (USA) 8(1):1–16. Medem, F. 1980. Caimans and crocodiles: a ceedings of the 2nd regional (Eastern Asia, Glasgow, V. L. 1991. A social history of the tale of destruction. Oryx 15:390–391. Oceania, Australasia) meeting of the Croc- American alligator. St. Martin’s Press, New Medem, F. 1981. Los Crocodylia de Sur Amer- odile Specialist Group. World Conserva- York. ica. Volume I. Los Crocodylia de Colom- tion Union, Gland, Switzerland. Hollands, M. 1987. The management of croco- bia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1998. diles in Papua New Guinea. Pages 73–89 Bogota. World trade in crocodilian skins, 1994– in G. J. W. Webb, S. C. Manolis, and P. Messel, H. 1991. Sustainable utilization: a pro- 1996. World Conservation Monitoring Whitehead, editors. Wildlife management: gram that conserves many crocodilians. Centre. Cambridge, United Kingdom. crocodiles and alligators. Surrey Beatty Species 16:30–32. Youngprapakorn, P. 1990. Hybrid CpsY. Sam- and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. Ross, J. P. 1995. La importancia del uso suste- utprakarn and Zoo, Samut- Hutton, J. M. 1992. Report of the coordinator ntado para la conservación de los coco- prakarn, Thailand.

Conservation Biology Volume 13, No. 3, June 1999