Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 179
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Session 6 Transportation
OCR for page 180
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 181
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources OLAW Perspective on Transportation of Nonhuman Primates Nelson Garnett, DVM The US Fish and Wildlife Service issues wildlife-related permits. The National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine also has regulations governing the importation of pets and other animals into the United States. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Center for Import and Export. Jurisdiction Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals Guide Standards Minimize transit time Minimize risk of zoonoses Protect against environmental extremes Avoid overcrowding Provide food and water Protect against physical trauma Transportation “In most cases in the United States, nonhuman primates are transported in motor vehicles with self-contained climate control units Office for Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH, Bethesda, MD
OCR for page 182
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources separate from the driver’s compartment, or by commercial airliners. Before shipping animals, one should carefully review all applicable laws and regulations. The following points are relevant to the transportation of nonhuman primates: …” “Transportation of nonhuman primates requires adherence to the standards published in the Code of Federal Regulations as well as those pertaining to interstate/international movement of animals if applicable. In addition, see Chapter 3 for information to comply with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA).” “The International Air Transport Association (IATA) publishes requirements for international shipping. These include detailed specifications for shipping crates, isolation of animal shipments from other cargo, handling of loaded crates for personnel safety, and many additional requirements covering a multitude of issues….” “Airlines are not required to carry animal shipments, and many airlines have opted not to handle these shipments. Consequently, there are fewer options for shipping these animals.” Transportation Initiative Regulatory burden item Offshoot of OLAW meetings on field biology and international collaboration Informal inquiry from IACUC Chair to OLAW, AAALAC, USDA, AALAS representatives regarding transportation problems Identified need for ILAR study on research animal transportation issues Not limited to nonhuman primates Increased complexity due to homeland security concerns Improved quality/welfare Availability of services Reduction of burden Transport of tissues/specimens Biosecurity concerns NIH/OLAW contribution Partners needed
OCR for page 183
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Transportation of Primates and the Animal Welfare Act Jerry DePoyster, DVM The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was first passed in 1966. A provision providing for the humane transport of “animals” was not added until a 1976 amendment. In the AWA, a nonhuman primate is defined as an “animal” for purposes of the AWA when it is being used, or intended for use, for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or the breeding of, or the selling of, as a pet. Ownership of nonhuman primates used solely as pets is not under the jurisdiction of the AWA. AWA transportation standards are detailed in 9 CFR, Part 3, Section 3.86 through 3.92, and in 9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.131. The titles of these particular standards and a bulleted summary of the contents are listed below. 9 CFR, Part 3 Section 3.86: Consignment to carriers and intermediate handlers • Record keeping • Time restrictions • Environmental factors, acclimation certificate • Feed and water instructions USDA, Animal and Plant Inspection Services, Riverdale, MD
OCR for page 184
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Section 3.87: Primary enclosures used to transport nonhuman primates • Construction • Cleaning • Ventilation • Compatibility of animals in enclosure • Space requirements • Marking and labeling • Record keeping Section 3.88: Primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, air, marine) • Cargo space design • Placement of primary enclosure • Environmental factors Section 3.89: Food and water requirements • Time restrictions • Placement of receptacles Section 3.90: Care in Transit • Observation of animals and environment • Veterinary care if needed Section 3.91: Terminal facilities • Placement of primary enclosure • Cleaning, sanitization, and pest control • Ventilation • Temperature • Shelter • Duration of stay in terminal facility Section 3.92: Handling • Environmental factors and shelter • Care of container while handling 9 CFR, Part 2 Section 2.131:Handling of animals (a)(1) Handling of all animals should be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, over-heating, excessively cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort. The full text of these standards, which appears in the document, is beyond the scope of this volume. Many of the major worldwide air carriers are members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and comply with IATA’s transportation regulations. The IATA and AWA regulations have very similar requirements with one major difference—the IATA regulations do not
OCR for page 185
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources allow transportation of pregnant females and females with suckling young whereas the AWA does allow a mother and nursing infant to travel together. There are also differences in the temperature ranges during different stages of transportation. The AWA allows from 45°F to 85°F whereas the IATA has an optimum temperature range from 70°F to 90°F. For all intent and purposes (and although some differences may have been overlooked in this very brief review), if IATA guidelines are being met, then it is most likely that the AWA regulations are also being met except for differences such as those stated above. It must be said that because the AWA is a law and the IATA regulations are member guidelines, transporters in the United States must fulfill the mandates of the AWA. Therefore, even though they may be an IATA member and meeting IATA regulations, transporters should also review the AWA standards before shipping to, from, or from one point to another in the United States. Outside the United States and its territories, the AWA does not apply. Other than the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) and IATA’s standards, there are other requirements that the transporter should be aware of. For example, only those nonhuman primates to be used for educational or scientific purposes are allowed entry into the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]). In addition, a list of these requirements would include, but is not limited to, the following: Health Certificates (USDA and individual state government requirements); Permit from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) (US Fish and Wildlife Service); Quarantine and tuberculosis testing (CDC); and Restrictions on wood from certain countries because of nonnative pests (USDA). For various reasons, air carriers may be reluctant to carry nonhuman primates. USDA’s jurisdiction covers only the humane care of animals that are transported and not whether or not air carriers transport animals. We believe, and this is only conjecture, that the air carriers could be reluctant to carry nonhuman primates for reasons that may include one or more of the opinions stated below: Health issue concerns for nonhuman primates and humans are prevalent. Animal cargo handlers must be trained and outfitted to wear full biohazard gear. The gear is also expensive. Insurance rates may be higher due to health and liability concerns.
OCR for page 186
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Airline passengers have a negative response to seeing handlers in full biosuits unloading cargo. It is possible that animal handlers may also have concerns about wearing this gear not only because it is awkward, but also for their health and well being. Cargo areas must be disinfected after each shipment of nonhuman primates. It is not uncommon for escapes to occur during transportation, thus endangering the animal and the public. Pressure from animal welfare/rights organizations. Although USDA/Animal Care presently regulates international transportation, plans are to begin full regulation of all international carriers of animals while on United States soil. Listed below is contact information for USDA’s Animal Care offices. Headquarters USDA-APHIS-Animal Care 4700 River Road, Unit 84 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 Phone: (301) 734-7833 Fax: (301) 734-4978 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Western Region USDA-APHIS-Animal Care 2150 Centre Ave., Building B Mailstop # 3W11 Ft Collins, CO 80526-8117 Phone: (970) 494-7478 Fax: (970) 494-7478 E-mail: email@example.com Eastern Region USDA-APHIS-Animal Care 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27606-5210 Phone: (919) 716-5532 Fax: (919) 716-5696 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
OCR for page 187
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources International Transportation of Nonhuman Primates: US Fish and Wildlife Service Perspective Michael Kreger, MS, PhD,* and Monica Farris† There are many regulatory issues concerning the care and use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research in the United States. Just as the Animal Welfare Act, administered by the US Department of Agriculture, covers interstate transportation of live nonhuman primates, and the US Public Health Service registers importers and requires quarantine of nonhuman primates under the Public Health Service Act, laws administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service cover the import and export of these species. Two laws affect the transportation of nonhuman primates to and from the United States: the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In this presentation, we will provide an overview of how these laws regulate the transport of nonhuman primates. LACEY ACT [18 USC 42] The Lacey Act prohibits import, export, transport, possession, sale, and purchase of mammals and birds in violation of state, federal, and foreign laws or regulations. Enacted in 1900, the Lacey Act is the oldest * Division of Scientific Authority † Division of Management Authority, US Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA
OCR for page 188
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources federal wildlife protection law in the United States. Regarding humane transportation, it states, It shall be unlawful for any person, including the importer, to knowingly cause or permit any wild animal or bird to be transported to the United States, or any territory thereof, under inhumane or unhealthful conditions” (18 USC 42 (C)). The presence in such vessel or conveyance at such time of a substantial ratio of dead, crippled, diseased or starving wild animals will be deemed prima facie evidence of the violation of the provisions of this subsection” (18 USC 42 (C) (2)). The regulations for transport under the Lacey Act (50 CFR Part 14, Subpart J, Humane and Healthful Transport of Live Mammals and Birds) closely resemble the guidelines found in the International Air Transport Association’s Live Animals Regulations (LAR). In fact, the Lacey Act regulations are periodically amended to reflect the most current version of the LAR. The Lacey Act also applies LAR to nonairline methods of transport. General rules for birds and mammals (§14.101-112) include the following: Carriers must have designated animal holding rooms/areas, free from exposure to noise, harassment, fumes, and away from inanimate cargo. Enclosures must have spacer bars. Enclosures must have upright arrows. Food/water/care instructions must be affixed to the outside of the container. Enclosures must have emergency access to animals. Enclosures must have sufficient openings to ensure adequate circulation of air at all times. The interior of the enclosure must be free from any protrusion that could be injurious to the animal. Animals must be provided safe, nontoxic litter in sufficient quantity to absorb and cover excreta. Animals must be provided food and water. Auxiliary ventilation must be provided when the surrounding air temperature exceeds 75°F. An unweaned, nursing (with young), sick, or injured animal will not be transported to the United States. Specifications for nonhuman primates (§14.121-123) include: No more than one primate per enclosure except under certain circumstances.
OCR for page 189
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Enclosures must be large enough for the animal to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and sit in a normal upright position. Food and water must be provided at least once every 12 hours, unless otherwise instructed. A primate shall be observed for signs of distress and given food and water according to the shipper’s instructions during any intermediate stop that lasts more than four hours. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (ESA) [16 USC 1538 (C)] The regulations for the ESA are found in 50 CFR Part 17. The ESA was passed to prevent the extinction of native and foreign animals and plants by providing measures to help alleviate the loss of species and their habitats. The objective is to rebuild wild populations of species in danger of extinction (endangered) or threatened (likely to become endangered in the near future without adequate monitoring and protection). All mammals and birds listed under the ESA in transport must comply with the provisions of the Lacey Act. In addition, the ESA is the law that implements the international CITES treaty (50 CFR Part 23). The CITES treaty is intended to prevent the exploitation of wild animals and plants through international trade. Although some nonhuman primate species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, all nonhuman primates are listed under CITES. The treaty relies on a basic principle of strictly limiting international trade in species in genuine need of protection while allowing controlled trade in species that are capable of sustaining some level of exploitation. A total of 157 nations are now Parties to CITES, with a few new countries still joining every year. CITES Resolution 10.21 endorses the LAR for both air transport and overland transport. PERMITS FOR IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF NONHUMAN PRIMATES All nonhuman primate imports and exports require permits. CITES establishes a permit system for regulating international trade, including imports, exports, and re-exports, in certain taxa of plants and animals, and parts and products derived from them, whether live or dead. (It is important to understand that in a CITES context, “trade” comprises any movement of specimens across international borders, for any purpose, whether or not it is commercial.) The taxa covered by the Convention are listed in three appendices, which determine how the Parties apply import and export controls on specimens of the listed species. The level of listing also determines the types of findings that must be made for the issuance
OCR for page 196
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Provide support for conservation of lowland gorilla in situ; and Support worldwide and Canadian efforts to control the bush meat working groups’ activities in Africa.
OCR for page 197
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Chinese Macaques—East Meets West C. K. Hsu, DVM, PhD, MPH,* and Ruishen Jia† China has developed and become one of the major breeders and suppliers of macaques for biotech-pharmaceutical-medical communities worldwide. China began the establishment of the rhesus (Macaca mulatta) captive-breeding program in 1978 and that of cynomolgus (Macaca fascicularis, of Vietnam/Cambodia origin) in 1985 for scientific research. The first export shipment of rhesus was in 1984 and cynomolgus in 1990. A total of 24 primate facilities are engaged in the breeding of either rhesus or cynomolgus monkeys or combined species. All primate facilities must register with and obtain licensure from the provincial government. An annual inventory of breeders must be reported to both provincial and central government authorities, which are responsible for the management and monitoring of the primate resources nationwide. Before 2001, three companies of quasigovernment status exclusively handled all exports of primates. With the recent Chinese WTO membership, beginning in 2002, it is a common belief that this commercial exclusivity practice should and will be removed. For each and every export shipment, the breeding facility will be carefully scrutinized by the authorities and must prove to be authentic from the captive-breeding program before a CITES is issued. All export-intended animals are subject to a 45-day period of * Shared Enterprises, Richlandtown, PA † Shared Animal Health and Technology (Beijing), LTD, Beijing, China
OCR for page 198
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources quarantine and tests including 3-TB (-), Shigella/Salmonella (-), and independently confirmed by the tests performed by the Animal Quarantine/ Monitoring Bureau, which must then issue the Health Certificate for monkeys to be shipped abroad. The production of macaques in China has increased steadily every year to meet both its domestic and export needs. The quality of macaques is generally very good, with a very low incidence of SRV, SIV, and STLV antibodies at ages 2 to 4 years. The accumulated viral serology data also indicate that the incidence of cercopithecine herpesvirus 1 (herpes B) antibody is significantly lower in rhesus than in cynomolgus macaques. In 2001, a total of 3802 rhesus and 8482 cynomolgus macaques were shipped from China to the United States, Japan, and Europe for biomedical research, a remarkable increase from that of 2840 and 6812, respectively, of 2000. Since 1990, China has become an increasingly valuable and reliable source of both rhesus and cynomolgus macaques for international scientists. The increasing trend may very well continue for years to come. This optimistic view is based on the fact that (1) three of the five worldwide airlines available for transoceanic shipping of nonhuman primates from China to the United States, Europe, and Japan are Chinese; (2) increased production of improved quality of captive-bred offspring (6000 rhesus and 15,000 cynomolgus in 2001); and (3) few transportation accidents cited by receiving countries in the past decade. Three major exit airports in China, namely Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, have been used to handle all China-origin macaques and a significant number of transit shipments of cynomolgus monkeys of Vietnam and Indonesia origins. In 2001, approximately 190 shipments of 12,500 macaques of China origin and 7000 cynomolgus macaques of Vietnam/Indonesia origin were shipped from China to the United States, Japan, and Europe (France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) via three Chinese air carriers: Air China, China Eastern, and China Southern. At this time, only Los Angeles and Seattle are used to receive macaque shipments via passenger or cargo flights from China. Chicago may be an excellent choice for receiving Chinese macaques using the cargo flights of two Chinese airlines. In Europe, Air China has carried primates to Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Madrid, and Paris. In Japan, the three Chinese airlines have transported macaques to Tokyo and Osaka. Attempts have been made to establish and produce specific pathogen-free rhesus and cynomolgus macaques (free of herpes B, SRV, SIV, STLV); however, progress has been extremely slow in China. Shipping crates with two, three, or four compartments, which exceed International Air Transport Association standards, are used to ship macaques. The crates are made of either hardwood or plywood. The two-
OCR for page 199
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources compartment crate made of hardwood is probably the strongest and most commonly used by Chinese primate facilities. All hardwood crates must be fumigated with ethyl bromide and certified by the government authorized facility as dictated by the agreement between US Department of Agriculture and the Chinese government to prevent the introduction of Asian longhorn beetles, which have caused severe loss of valuable hardwood trees in the United States. The international transportation of nonhuman primates between continents remains a critical and unpredictable risk factor for both biomedical communities and primate breeding facilities worldwide. Its impact on the use of imported primates for scientific research is probably as significant as the impact on captive-bred animals and the conservation of natural primate resources. Scientific communities worldwide must deal and communicate with airline industry to avoid a severe interruption of research using primates. Fewer and fewer air carriers are willing to ship nonhuman primates in the air and to handle them on the ground. All evidence indicates that the valuable resources of both rhesus and cynomolgus macaques in China will remain a reliable and important source for biomedical communities worldwide. The current status of Chinese macaque resources is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 Current Chinese Macaque Resources Macaca mulatta Macaca fascicularis Natural resources 200,000 0 Captive resources 25,000 53,000 Breeding female 10,000 20,000 Production (weaned) 6,000 15,000 Breeding facility 19/25 16/25 Quality Excellent Excellent Export 3802 (27%) 8482 (35%) International transportation Excellent Excellent Use Increased Increased Risk International airports International airports Trend Promising Promising Resource potential Very good Very good
OCR for page 200
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Session 6: Panel Discussion Participants: William R. Morton—Session Chair, Washington National Primate Research Center, USA Nelson Garnett—NIH/Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, USA Jerry DePoyster—APHIS/USDA, USA Michael Kreger—US Department of the Interior, USA William A. Rapley—Toronto Zoo, Canada C.K. Hsu—Shared Enterprises, USA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DR. BAUDOIN (Mario Baudoin, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Planning): This question is for the whole panel and if someone has an answer I will very much appreciate it. Quite simply, I would like to ask whether the US government can require US airlines to carry monkeys and if so, how. Is there a way for people here and in other related organizations to lobby? For three days now, we have discussed the need for monkeys and other nonhuman primates in research. DR. MORTON (William R. Morton, Washington National Primate Research Center): I do not think there is any way that the US airways can be required to carry animals of any kind. That decision is purely theirs to make. It is basically an economic decision, and many factors enter in to how that is economically driven. I really do not think there is any kind of
OCR for page 201
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources lobbying that is going to force these airlines to take what, in their view, is a very, very small portion of their overall cargo with many associated problems. My opinion, based on what I know of the US government, US research interests, and certainly NIH-based research interests, is that there should be a concerted effort at the NIH government level to make a determination as to how this critical resource for the nation will be carried— whether international or domestic resources are needed to move this resource from research institution to institution. For a long time we thought (and I know I am not alone in this) that there should be some sort of central convening of the minds as to how we can approach this problem— in contrast to a private US airlines kind of direction. Now maybe some of you on the committee have other thoughts about that matter. DR. RAPLEY (William A. Rapley, Toronto Zoo): I would like to mention only that we still have some arrangement with Air Canada because we have done so much with them. When we recently sent the mandrill to Los Angeles for the species plan, we were able to fly it to Vancouver and then transport it by vehicle to Los Angeles. However, with the black-footed ferret project currently in progress, we have been involved with chartering planes. One of the main reasons was to avoid absolutely any potential contamination of canine distemper at the airport. So we have gone directly from small planes from Toronto to Omaha, which we have done in a number of cases with species. Small charter has some potential there. DR. BAUDOIN: I can understand the situation within Canada, but thinking of such countries as Indonesia, Barbados, St. Kitts, and so on, there is a great difference to the airlines of a monkey meant for a zoo for education and a monkey for biomedical research and to save human lives. The point here is that big difference to the airlines. DR. HSU (C.K. Hsu, Shared Enterprises): About 4 to 5 years ago, even a US carrier originally from China did carry some nonhuman primates from China to Japan. The latest was Northwest Airlines to Los Angeles, which for some reason they recently stopped. That was long after. They do not even carry animals domestically, obviously, and right now they refuse to carry any nonhuman primates from China to any part outside China. PARTICIPANT A: Dr. Garnett, you mentioned in your speech that there is a report with which I am not familiar, that had some suggestions/ recommendations about relieving some of the current regulatory burdens. One of them was that permits would not need to be required for species that are immediately threatened with extinction. I have some follow-up questions, but I was wondering if you could elaborate briefly on what species and in what fora those permits would no longer be required. DR. GARNETT (Nelson Garnett, NIH/Office of Laboratory Animal
OCR for page 202
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources Welfare): That language was very convoluted and it was coming directly out of the Mahoney Report. Essentially it was asking Fish and Wildlife to not extend their regulations beyond what the actual law required. The specific language, although difficult, is available on the NIH website (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/regulatoryburden/index.htm). Essentially it is an overarching report that was mandated by the NIH budget hearing for NIH’s funding. It involves an extensive view of five different areas of regulation considered to be burdensome: human subjects research, animal research, conflict of interests, and a number of hazardous waste disposal issues. The report includes the group’s recommendations. PARTICIPANT A: Are these permits that would no longer be necessary the CITES permits for importation of species, which are threatened/ immediately threatened with extinction? DR. GARNETT: These were proposals made to NIH about issues that are not regulated by NIH. PARTICIPANT B: I also am confused because it seems to me that the NIH recommendations, therefore, would be to the Fish and Wildlife Service directing them not to comply with CITES because Appendix 1, species under CITES, are by definition those threatened with extinction. I am confused because it seems that the recommendations would be to direct Fish and Wildlife Service and to not comply with its obligations under CITES. DR. GARNETT: I do not think that was the intent. There may be some Mahoney Committee members here who could shed some light on that. PARTICIPANT C: They would apply only to scientific institutions that are currently given general permits, but only for herbaria and for museum specimens. However, it would apply to research specimens, and general permits are given to institutions like Harvard University. So there are some dangers, but there are also some savings in time. PARTICIPANT B: I would like to argue with the point about the dangers. I believe it is incredibly dangerous to give a blanket permit, especially CITES, to an institution for wildlife. It is particularly dangerous without defining what “threatened with extinction” means because, of course, there is a definition of threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act. There is also a different one under CITES, and a different one under IUCN criteria. I believe these distinctions are quite important. Because I was not on this Mahoney Committee, I wanted to point them out. PARTICIPANT C: We are shipping animals from Israel to Europe. In my opinion, the first reason airlines give for not transporting animals is the personnel involved, not the business policy. At least in our region a company will ship anything. I can tell you that from my experience be
OCR for page 203
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources cause Israel does not have any possibility of shipping animals via ground. We sued our national company in court and we won. It has not yet ended, but we are glad that, for example, the park and sanitation organization in Israel joined us in court and stated that this is important. I want to raise another issue connected to this—the welfare issue. I have heard in many government institutes that we are breeding animals in England and other places because we want to be sure we will have the supply in the future. Why then do we send these animals on a 5 hour flight and we put them in an indoor facility for 6 months a year and not in the temperature they like to live? No one commented about this welfare side of the problem. No one said anything about this complaint that basically they must be shipped to a distance 10 times farther when, for example, if we chose this because it was cheaper, we would be criticized all over the world. I think we must be much more decisive about transportation. If a company will ship goose liver and food made from animals, why will they not ship something that has a benefit for all of humanity? DR. MORTON: You bring up some interesting points. From the US point of view and again from a point of view I can speak to in terms of the primate center’s program, NIH, I believe you are seeing a gradual movement of breeding colonies to more appropriate areas of the country in the more southerly areas of the country, where it is a better environment for the monkeys themselves. Certainly it is a more productive environment and, speaking personally, a much improved environment in terms of health and well-being for the animals. However, it does bring us back to the problem of how to ship these animals reliably and in a timely fashion from those breeding facilities to the areas of use, the research facilities. That is a big problem, and I think it is part of this panels’ overall problem. DR. GARNETT: I think that the proposed study would be an appropriate vehicle for addressing a number of these problems and infrastructure recommendations. DR. BAUDOIN: This question is for Dr. William Rapley. In Bolivia, we have 1,300,000 acres of protected areas managed in 1990. We have 15,000,000 now, but half of our country is being called “ancient forests.” I attended the discussion at The Hague on this theme at the convention on biodiversity. The discussion has been dominated by the endangerment discussion, particularly in the last meeting in Montreal in September. We have gone from 0 in 1996 to 1,000,000 acres of certified forests now; however, we cannot accept that the ancient forests will be dedicated only for protection because that means 50% of our country, and we have a great many people living there. They do eat things and use things, and it is the only choice they have. To do nothing with the forest, the forest will be replaced by rice fields. I think that in the discussion on these issues, sometimes because only one aspect is stressed, you may have the opposite
OCR for page 204
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources effect. I wanted to mention this because in your talk, I think there was the message of the local people’s usage of the forest in a destructive way, which I do not think is what you wanted to convey. DR. RAPLEY: I think that is a good point. I did not really have the time to explain things. IUCN stands for sustainable use of resources and everywhere in the world we work with the endemic people, whether it is in the Arctic in Canada or in any country. You have to look at each resource and identify the areas that must be protected. The Macaca fascicularis projected world population is 20 million according to this, which is probably not very accurate, but we know it is a very low-risk population and not a problem. Let us say the 5000 to 7000 Macaca fascicularis fuscata that are found in less than a 10 km2 are in danger. We need more studies of all of these species and the biodiversity and the monitoring to identify which areas should receive the most protection and which areas are perhaps not as important. Working with the people in the forest is extremely important. Dr. Mittermeier, I am sure, will say a lot about this tonight because we will extract wood; people have to eat; it is a way of changing the way they do that. If you take the wood and carve it or make things, then you send it out, rather than shipping the raw product (Canada is not successful at shipping the product somewhere else to have it made into a product). Such a process is not sustainable use as much as it could be. In the villages, in Central Africa they had a tradition of shooting the gorillas and chimpanzees cutting the thumbs, and putting the thumbs on a necklace around the child’s neck to protect it from evil spirits. A tremendous amount of work is required to attempt to change that tradition and to have some of the species that are common there hunted on a controlled basis. They are going to have some farming and other activities, but hopefully they are not going to kill chimpanzees and gorillas. In every place, there is detailed work required to address every situation and define it, and I admit that we have not spent enough of our resources to really study that need. However, we are working to balance the situation as much as possible. So there are different ways of doing things and as you know, IUCN promotes selective harvesting. I agree with the approach not to protect everything because it does not work. PARTICIPANT D: The bush meat crisis has become a hot topic recently. It is often a topic in the Journal of Conservation Biology, and some of the reports we are getting with the work we do with the great apes conservation fund and African elephants fund indicate that there are multinational and national companies coming into some of these primary growth forests. They are hiring locals, but they may not be feeding the locals. Even though we know that locals have for years subsisted on some
OCR for page 205
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources of the wildlife that is endemic to the area, it has gotten so bad lately that there is a new term called “silent forest.” We are finding that dikkers and other small antelope as well as birds are disappearing. People are eating the reptiles and so a lot of the fauna is disappearing at a really alarming rate. DR. BAUDOIN: What are you going to tell people in the forests because I do not think it is just going to go away? No, I think that it is a recipe that you have to think about. DR. MORTON: If possible, I would like to direct these questions more to transportation. DR. MCGREAL (Shirley McGreal, International Primate Protection League): Speaking for transportation, I would like to address both Drs. DePoyster and Kreger and possibly our friend from China, Dr. Hsu. As you know, Dr. DePoyster, you do not have any real law enforcement through criminal or misdemeanor prosecutions but must work through administrative courts. I would like to commend Dr. Kreger, along with Special Agent Kirby and all the special agents, for their April 9th indictment of a major US importer, LABS of Virginia, and its president, for 12 major counts these including eight charges of shipping infant monkeys. The charges are eight felonies and four misdemeanors for shipping 3- to 4-week-old infant monkeys, which was totally outrageous. I am sure that all of the African bodies are very pleased also to see this indictment. The senior felony charges were for the importation of captive—reportedly captive—born animals that we in fact allegedly caught in the wild. Now we have heard numerous reports from anonymous Chinese sources at the International Primate Protection League that some of these monkeys coming out of China are, in fact, wild caught in Vietnam and laundered into the United States. I understand there is some sort of on-going investigation. However, I would like to ask whether you think it is possible for these huge numbers of cynos to be captive born, or is there some laundering going on? DR. KREGER (Michael Kreger, US Department of the Interior): We hope there is no laundering going on. We do the best we can with our permits to check for legal acquisition to make sure these animals come from where they are supposed to come from. Very often we are in touch with other scientific authorities or other management authorities from the range countries. Again, we can also talk to people in the zoo community or people who are out in the field to find out exactly what is going on in the range countries. Sometimes things do get in that are not supposed to come in, or people may fill out a permit form to give us the information that they think we want to hear, but we have law enforcement check into those kinds of things.
OCR for page 206
International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources PARTICIPANT E: My question ties in with capture for transport to the United States versus the bush meat issue. I would like to ask Dr. Rapley to explain to me what the difference would be if an animal were CITES Appendix 2 listed and that animal were captured for bush meat, which you have called disgusting (but which to me seems more of an ethical judgment than a population-based assessment) versus transporting that animal to the United States to be used for research purposes. Could you simply explain what the difference would be from the zoo community’s perspective? DR. RAPLEY: The question is difficult, and I agree there is perhaps no easy answer. The whole idea is that we should try to protect in the wild those animals that are extremely rare. If we cannot because they are under pressure and must be rescued or moved and put in captivity, because the habitat is decreasing so rapidly, we must consider that information. For example, of the 40 species in Indonesia, many are recommended for captivity because otherwise, they will be gone as species. Sometimes we place animals in captivity if they are endangered to conduct research on them for their own purpose. In other words, we learn how to breed them or learn about their genetics, learn about their potential for reintroduction, and things like that. So there is a wide array of different things that go on. In Indonesia and other countries, if something is not done, there will not be any gorillas or chimpanzees in 10 to 15 years in the wild; they will be gone. It is very scary; something must happen. I once worked extensively with a World Wildlife Fund traffic person who is based in Toronto. He showed me pictures of a transfer station in China where things are accumulated for shipment to all parts of the world for food. There were soft-shelled turtles, reptiles, and huge boxes and mammoth collections of these types of things. It seems to me that at this rate, there will not be very much left in the wild. What I am trying to say is that I am not against biomedical research. I realize the benefits. I worked in the field directly for 8 years, and I understand why these things are important. I am just saying the really endangered species need protection and that the captive breeding such as the vervets in St. Kitts and the 20 million cynomolgus monkeys are not threatened. They are bred in captivity and they are used for biomedical research. I do not have a personal objection to that system. Nevertheless, there is a whole range of things to consider within the system.
Representative terms from entire chapter: