The commercial trade in exotic pets has had little impact on wild populations of reptiles and amphibians

Abstract The commercial trade in exotic pets has raised concerns about population‐level impacts from collection in the wild; however, proponents of the trade claim that such concerns are unfounded. To resolve this debate, more information is needed on the volume of the pet trade, the species involved, their conservation status in the wild, and the relative numbers of wild‐caught versus captive‐bred animals. To examine these issues for reptiles and amphibians, we assembled and analyzed data on >255,000 specimens over a 16‐year period from the pricelists of a major commercial supplier in the United States and >85,000 specimens over a 6‐year period from suppliers in Europe. A small number of species dominated: 31% of listings included 22 species (14 snakes, four lizards, three frogs, and one turtle were all listed >2000 times). Of the 27 most commonly listed taxa, all were rated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as least concern, except for two python species where collection for the pet trade is likely to be a minor threat compared with habitat destruction. The proportion of all listings that were described as captive‐bred rather than wild‐caught was approximately 34% and increased over time. There was no overlap between species that were in high demand for the pet trade versus for their meat and skins. We concluded that the major risks to reptiles and amphibians from the pet trade do not involve the unsustainable harvest of wild animals, but there are animal welfare issues and threats related to the spread of disease to wild populations and ecological and genetic impacts of released pets. Over the period that we surveyed, the numbers and types of reptiles and amphibians offered for sale by the U.S. and U.K. suppliers were unlikely to have imperiled populations of most species that were traded.