Understanding the social dynamics of exotic pet ownership in Brazil: insights from an online survey on legal and illegal trade
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/avs.v31i2.101850Palavras-chave:
Conservation, responsible pet ownership, traffic, wildlife.Resumo
O comércio ilegal de animais silvestres constitui uma indústria bilionária, com profundas consequências ecológicas e sociais. Reconhecendo que uma abordagem multidisciplinar é essencial para enfrentar essa problemática, o presente estudo teve como objetivo compreender as dinâmicas sociais do consumo de animais exóticos no Brasil, com foco nas preferências, motivações e nível de informação dos consumidores. Foi aplicado um questionário on-line transversal e anônimo, obtendo-se 1.706 respostas válidas. Os resultados mostraram que 88,3% dos participantes conhecem alguém que possui ou já possuiu um animal exótico, enquanto 48,9% declararam possuir ou já ter possuído um. Além disso, 63,6% manifestaram interesse em adquirir um animal exótico. Homens, indivíduos entre 30 e 49 anos e participantes com nível superior de escolaridade foram mais propensos a possuir ou desejar animais exóticos, tanto de forma legal quanto ilegal. Entre os que relataram possuir animais ilegais, a maioria informou que o animal morreu ou foi entregue, enquanto cerca de 10% foram soltos ou fugiram. A diferença de preço entre animais legais e ilegais mostrou-se um fator decisivo nas escolhas de aquisição: embora 40% tenham optado por animais legais mesmo com custo mais alto, quando a diferença de preço atingiu dez vezes, as preferências se dividiram igualmente. Apenas cerca de 50% dos participantes responderam corretamente sobre a legislação de fauna, revelando baixo nível de conhecimento jurídico e normalização cultural do comércio de animais silvestres no país. Os achados indicam que a escassez de alternativas legais acessíveis e os altos custos regulatórios para criadores impulsionam o mercado ilegal, enquanto a baixa taxa de denúncias dificulta a fiscalização. Fortalecer a educação ambiental, promover a consciência legal e reduzir a diferença econômica entre os mercados legal e ilegal podem favorecer a posse responsável e apoiar estratégias multidisciplinares para mitigar o comércio doméstico ilegal de fauna silvestre no Brasil.
Referências
Abensperg-Traun, M. 2009. CITES, sustainable use of wild species, and incentive-driven conservation in developing countries, with an emphasis on southern Africa. Biol. Conserv., 142(5), 948–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.034.
ABINPET. 2023. Mercado PET BRASIL 2023. Disponível em: https://abinpet.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/abinpet_folder_dados_mercado_2023_draft5.pdf. Acesso em: jun. 2023.
Altherr, S.; Lameter, K. 2020. The rush for the rare: reptiles and amphibians in the European pet trade. Zoology, 110(4), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112085.
Alves, R. R. N.; De Araújo, B. M. C.; Policarpo, I. S.; Pereira, H. M.; Borges, A. K. M.; Vieira, W. L. S.; Vasconcellos, A. 2019. Keeping reptiles as pets in Brazil: ethnozoological and conservation aspects. J. Nat. Conserv., 49, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.02.002.
Alves, R. R. N.; De F. Lima, J. R.; Araújo, H. F. P. 2013. The live bird trade in Brazil and its conservation implications: an overview. Bird Conserv. Int., 23(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095927091200010X.
Alves, R. R. N.; Leite, R.; Souto, W. M. S.; Bezerra, D. M. M.; Loures-Ribeiro, A. 2013. Ethno-ornithology and conservation of wild birds in the semi-arid Caatinga of northeastern Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-14.
Awasthy, M.; Popovic, A. Z.; Linklater, W. L. 2012. Experience in local urban wildlife research enhances a conservation education programme with school children. Pac. Conserv. Biol., 18(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC120041.
Beery, T.; Jørgensen, K. A. 2016. Children in nature: sensory engagement and the experience of biodiversity. Environ. Educ. Res., 24(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250149.
Brooks, E. G. E.; Roberton, S. I.; Bell, D. J. 2010. The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biol. Conserv., 143(11), 2808–2814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.030.
Brown, B.; Benedict, W. R. 2002. Perceptions of the police: past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: Int. J., 25(3), 543–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210437032.
Bugnot, A. B.; Coleman, R. A.; Figueira, W. F.; Marzinelli, E. M. 2016. Effects of the receiving assemblage and disturbance on the colonization of an invasive species. Mar. Biol., 163(7), 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2929-4.
Burivalova, Z.; Lee, T. M.; Hua, F.; Lee, J. S. H.; Prawiradilaga, D. M.; Wilcove, D. S. 2017. Understanding consumer preferences and demography in order to reduce the domestic trade in wild-caught birds. Biol. Conserv., 209, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.005.
Bush, E. R.; Baker, S. E.; Macdonald, D. W. 2014. Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012. Conserv. Biol., 28(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12240.
Challender, D. W. S.; Wu, S. B.; Nijman, V.; Macmillan, D. C. 2014a. Changing behavior to tackle the wildlife trade. Front. Ecol. Environ., 12(4), 203. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-12.4.203.
Challender, D. W.; Harrop, S. R.; Macmillan, D. C. 2014b. Towards informed and multifaceted wildlife trade interventions. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 3, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.11.010.
Clout, M. N. 2002. Biodiversity loss caused by invasive alien vertebrates. Z. Jagdwiss., 48, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192392.
Colautti, R. I.; MacIsaac, H. J. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Divers. Distrib., 10(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00061.x.
Courchamp, F.; Angulo, E.; Rivalan, P.; Hall, R. J.; Signoret, L.; Bull, L.; Meinard, Y. 2006. Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLoS Biol., 4(12), e415. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040415.
Cronin, K. A.; Leahy, M.; Ross, S. R.; Wilder Schook, M.; Ferrie, G. M.; Alba, A. C. 2022. Younger generations are more interested than older generations in having non-domesticated animals as pets. PLoS One, 17(1), e0262208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262208.
Crooks, J. A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 97(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970201.x.
Czech, B.; Devers, P. K.; Krausman, P. R. 2001. The relationship of gender to species conservation attitudes. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 29(1), 187–194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3783997.
Daut, E. F.; Brightsmith, D. J.; Mendoza, A. P.; Puhakka, L.; Peterson, M. J. 2015. Illegal domestic bird trade and the role of export quotas in Peru. J. Nat. Conserv., 27, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.06.005.
Destro, G. F. G.; Lucena, T.; Monti, R.; Cabral, R.; Barreto, R. 2012. Efforts to combat wild animal trafficking in Brazil. In: Lameed, G. A. (Ed.), Biodiversity Enrichment in a Diverse World. p. 421–436. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/48351.
Ding, J.; Mack, R. N.; Lu, P.; Ren, M.; Huang, H. 2008. China’s booming economy is sparking and accelerating biological invasions. BioScience, 58(4), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580407.
Drury, R. 2011. Hungry for success: urban consumer demand for wild animal products in Vietnam. Conserv. Soc., 9(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.86995.
Eagly, A. H.; Crowley, M. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol. Bull., 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283.
Felbab-Brown, V. 2018. Wildlife and drug trafficking, terrorism, and human security. Prism, 7, 124–137. Disponível em: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/wildlife-and-drug-trafficking-terrorism-and-human-security/. Acesso em: set. 2023.
Fonseca, E.; Zank, C.; Cechin, S. T. Z.; Both, C. C. 2021. Reptile pet trade in Brazil: a regulatory approach to sustainable biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract., 3(10), e504. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.504.
Fredrikson, M.; Annas, P.; Fischer, H.; Wik, G. 1996. Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias. Behav. Res. Ther., 34(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00048-3.
Gault, A.; Meinard, Y.; Courchamp, F. 2008. Consumers' taste for rarity drives sturgeons to extinction. Conserv. Lett., 1(5), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00038.x.
Hall, R. J.; Milner-Gulland, E. J.; Courchamp, F. 2008. Endangering the endangered: the effects of perceived rarity on species exploitation. Conserv. Lett., 1(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00013.x.
Harfoot, M.; Glaser, S. A. M.; Tittensor, D. P.; Britten, G. B.; McLardy, C.; Malsch, K.; Burgess, N. D. 2018. Unveiling the patterns and trends in 40 years of global trade in CITES-listed wildlife. Biol. Conserv., 223, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.017.
Herzog, H. A. 2007. Gender differences in human–animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687.
Hughes, A. C. 2021. Wildlife trade. Curr. Biol., 31(19), 1141–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.066.
Jepson, P.; Ladle, R. J. 2005. Bird-keeping in Indonesia: conservation impacts and the potential for substitution-based conservation responses. Oryx, 39(4), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605305001110.
Johnson, P. J.; Kansky, R.; Loveridge, A.; Macdonald, D. W. 2010. Size, rarity and charisma: valuing African wildlife trophies. PLoS One, 5(9), e12866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012866.
Karesh, W. B.; Cook, R. A.; Bennett, E. L.; Newcomb, J. 2005. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 11(7), 1000–1002. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1107.050194.
Kellert, S. R. 1993. Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. J. Soc. Issues, 49(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00908.x.
Kellert, S. R.; Berry, J. K. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 15(3), 363–371. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782542.
Knight, A. J. 2008. "Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!" How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J. Environ. Psychol., 28(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001.
Leavitt, K.; Wodahl, E. J.; Schweitzer, K. 2021. Citizen willingness to report wildlife crime. Deviant Behav., 42(10), 1256–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1738643.
Leighton, K.; Kardong-Edgren, S.; Schneidereith, T.; Foisy-Doll, C. 2021. Using social media and snowball sampling as an alternative recruitment strategy for research. Clin. Simul. Nurs., 55, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.006.
Leuschner, W. A.; Ritchie, V. P.; Stauffer, D. F. 1989. Opinions on wildlife: responses of resource managers and wildlife users in the southeastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 17(1), 24–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3782032.
Lyons, J. A.; Natusch, D. J. D. 2013. Effects of consumer preferences for rarity on the harvest of wild populations within a species. Ecol. Econ., 93, 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.004.
Magalhães, A. L. B.; São-Pedro, V. A. 2012. Illegal trade on non-native amphibians and reptiles in southeast Brazil: the status of e-commerce. Phyllomedusa: J. Herpetol., 11(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v11i2p155-160.
Massé, F.; Dickinson, H.; Margulies, J.; Joanny, L.; Lappe-Osthege, T.; Duffy, R. 2020. Conservation and crime convergence? Situating the 2018 London illegal wildlife trade conference. J. Polit. Ecol., 27(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.2458/v27i1.23543.
Mathews, S.; Herzog, H. A. 1997. Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Soc. Anim., 5(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00060.
Máximo, I. M.; Brandão, R. A.; Ruggeri, J.; Toledo, L. F. 2021. Amphibian illegal pet trade and a possible new case of an invasive exotic species in Brazil. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 16(2), 303–312.
McNeely, J. A.; Kapoor-Vijay, P.; Zhi, L.; Olsvig-Whittaker, L.; Sheik, K. M.; Smith, A. T. 2009. Conservation biology in Asia: the major policy challenges. Conserv. Biol., 23(4), 805–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01284.x.
Moloney, G. K.; Tuke, J.; Dal Grande, E.; Nielsen, T.; Chaber, A. 2021. Is YouTube promoting the exotic pet trade? Analysis of the global public perception of popular YouTube videos featuring threatened exotic animals. PLoS One, 16(4), e0235451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235451.
Moorhouse, T. P.; Balaskas, M.; D’Cruze, N. C.; Macdonald, D. W. 2017. Information could reduce consumer demand for exotic pets. Conserv. Lett., 10(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12270.
Myers, O. E.; Saunders, C. D.; Birjulin, A. A. 2004. Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: an experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator (N. Y.), 47(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00127.x.
Nekaris, B. K. A.-I.; Campbell, N.; Coggins, T. G.; Rode, E. J.; Nijman, V. 2013. Tickled to death: analyzing public perceptions of ‘cute’ videos of threatened species (slow lorises – Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 sites. PLoS One, 8(7), e69215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069215.
Nicksa, S. C. 2014. Bystander’s willingness to report theft, physical assault, and sexual assault: the impact of gender, anonymity, and relationship with the offender. J. Interpers. Violence, 29(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505146.
Oliveira, W. S. L.; Borges, A. K. M.; De Faria Lopes, S.; Vasconcellos, A.; Alves, R. R. N. 2020. Illegal trade of songbirds: an analysis of the activity in an area of northeast Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., 16, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00365-5.
Philippssen, J. S.; Angeoletto, F. H. S.; Santana, R. G. 2017. Education level and income are important for good environmental awareness: a case study from South Brazil. Ecol. Austral., 27(1), 39–44.
Phillip, S.; Dandy, N.; Gill, R.; MacMillan, D. C. 2009. Is legislation a barrier to the sustainable management of game species? A case study of wild deer in Britain. J. Environ. Plann. Manag., 52(8), 993–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903327351.
Pires, S.; Moreto, W. 2011. Preventing wildlife crimes: solutions that can overcome the “tragedy of the commons”. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res., 17(2), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9141-3.
Pistoni, J.; Toledo, L. F. 2010. Amphibian illegal trade in Brazil: what do we know? South Am. J. Herpetol., 5(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.2994/057.005.0106.
Prokop, P.; Tunnicliffe, S. D. 2008. “Disgusting” animals: primary school children’s attitudes and myths of bats and spiders. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 4(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75309.
Pyšek, P.; Jarošík, V.; Hulme, P. E.; Kühn, I.; Wild, J.; Arianoutsou, M. et al. 2010. Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 107(27), 12157–12162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002314107.
RENCTAS. 2014. 1º Relatório Nacional sobre o Tráfico de Fauna Silvestre. Disponível em: https://www.renctas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/REL_RENCTAS_pt_final.pdf. Acesso em: jun. 2023.
Rivalan, P.; Delmas, V.; Angulo, E.; Bull, L. S.; Hall, R. J.; Courchamp, F.; Rosser, A. M.; Leader-Williams, N. 2007. Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature, 447, 529–530. https://doi.org/10.1038/447529a.
Robinson, J. E.; Griffiths, R. A.; St. John, F. A. V.; Roberts, D. L. 2015. Dynamics of the global trade in live reptiles: shifting trends in production and consequences for sustainability. Biol. Conserv., 184, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.019.
Romagosa, C. M. 2015. Contribution of the live animal trade to biological invasions. In: Canning-Clode, J. (Ed.), Biological Invasions in Changing Ecosystems. p. 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110438666-010.
Salminen, S.; Glad, T. 1992. The role of gender in helping behavior. J. Soc. Psychol., 132(1), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9924697.
Sas-Rolfes, M.; Challender, D. W.; Hinsley, A.; Veríssimo, D.; Milner-Gulland, E. J. 2019. Illegal wildlife trade: scale, processes, and governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 44, 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033253.
Scheffers, B. R.; Oliveira, B. F.; Lamb, I.; Edwards, D. P. 2019. Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science, 366(6461), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5327.
Siriwat, P.; Nekaris, K. A. I.; Nijman, V. 2019. The role of the anthropogenic Allee effect in the exotic pet trade on Facebook in Thailand. J. Nat. Conserv., 51, 125726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125726.
Smith, K. F.; Behrens, M.; Schloegel, L. M.; Marano, N.; Burgiel, S.; Daszak, P. 2009. Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science, 324(5927), 594–595. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174460.
South, N.; Wyatt, T. 2011. Comparing illicit trades in wildlife and drugs: an exploratory study. Deviant Behav., 32(6), 538–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.483162.
Souza, V. L.; Mendonça-dos-Santos, T.; Peñaverde, A. P.; Luz, L. F.; Reis, I. J. 2007. Caracterização dos répteis descartados por mantenedores particulares e entregues ao Centro de Conservação e Manejo de Répteis e Anfíbios – RAN. Rev. Biol. Neotrop., 4(2), 149–160.
Stohlgren, T. J.; Schnase, J. L. 2006. Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal., 26(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00707.x.
Sung, Y.-H.; Fong, J. J. 2018. Assessing consumer trends and illegal activity by monitoring the online wildlife trade. Biol. Conserv., 227, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.025.
Sutherland, W. J.; Adams, W. M.; Aronson, R. B.; Aveling, R.; Blackburn, T. M.; Broad, S.; Ceballos, G.; Côté, I. M.; Cowling, R. M.; Da Fonseca, G. A.; Dinerstein, E.; Ferraro, P. J.; Fleishman, E.; Gascon, C.; Hunter, M. Jr.; Hutton, J.; Kareiva, P.; Kuria, A.; Macdonald, D. W.; Mackinnon, K.; Watkinson, A. R. 2009. One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conserv. Biol., 23(3), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01212.x.
Thạch, H. M.; Le, M. D.; Vũ, N. B.; Panariello, A.; Sethi, G.; Sterling, E. J.; Blair, M. E. 2018. Slow loris trade in Vietnam: exploring diverse knowledge and values. Folia Primatol., 89(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481196.
Thuiller, W.; Richardson, D. M.; Rouget, M.; Procheş, S.; Wilson, J. R. U. 2006. Interactions between environment, species traits, and human uses describe patterns of plant invasions. Ecology, 87(7), 1755–1769. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1755:IBESTA]2.0.CO;2.
Van Uhm, D.; South, N.; Wyatt, T. 2021. Connections between trades and trafficking in wildlife and drugs. Trends Organ. Crime, 24, 425–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-021-09416-z.
Veríssimo, D.; Challender, D. W. S.; Nijman, V. 2012. Wildlife trade in Asia: start with the consumer. Asian J. Conserv. Biol., 2, 49–50.
Wagner, K.; Owen, S.; Burke, T. W. 2019. Not wild about wildlife protection? The perceived harmfulness, wrongfulness, and seriousness of wildlife crimes. Soc. Anim., 27(4), 383–492. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341589.
Wyatt, T.; Van Uhm, D.; Nurse, A. 2020. Differentiating criminal networks in the illegal wildlife trade: organized, corporate and disorganized crime. Trends Organ. Crime, 23, 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-020-09385-9.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
- Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons - Atribuição 4.0 Internacional que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.











