Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rough Trade: Animal Welfare in the Global Wildlife Trade

·2013·BioScience

Abstract

Wildlife trade is a big and burgeoning business, but its welfare impacts have not been studied comprehensively. We review the animal welfare impacts of the wildlife trade as they were reported in the literature between 2006 and 2011. Rarely was the term welfare mentioned, evidence of welfare impact documented, or welfare improvement recommended. Literature focused on mammals and on animals killed on site, for luxury goods or food, and for traditional medicine. Welfare impacts may be underreported, particularly in international, illegal, and wild-caught trade and trade in reptiles. Greater attention should perhaps be paid to the welfare of animals traded alive and in larger numbers (e.g., birds, reptiles, amphibians) and to those—including mammals—potentially subject to greater impacts through live use (e.g., as pets). More evidence-based research is needed. Animal welfare should be integrated with wider issues; collaboration between conservationists and welfarists and the development of health and welfare levers to influence trade offer benefits to both people and wildlife.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Venue
BioScience
Published
2013-12
Volume
63
Issue
12
Pages
928-938
ISSN
  • 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3244
OpenAlex
W2105557471
Cited by
262
References
41
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rough Trade: Animal Welfare in the Global Wildlife Trade. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6
The paper
Rough Trade: Animal Welfare in the Global Wildlife Trade. (2013). BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.