Animal Traffic: Lively Capital in the Global Exotic Pet Trade by Rosemary-Claire Collard (2020) 200 pp., Duke University Press, Durham, USA. ISBN 978-1-4780-1092-0 (pbk), USD 24.95.

Abstract

Animal Traffic: Lively Capital in the Global Exotic Pet Trade is a unique contribution to the existing robust studies about the legal and illegal wildlife trade. The uniqueness stems from Collard’s theoretical framework as well as her fieldwork. I will discuss each of these in turn before talking about how these strengths could have been used more broadly. In regard to the theoretical framework, Collard grounds some of her thoughtful analysis in feminist political economy. This leads her to insightful musings about the socio-ecological reproduction of non-human animals. In essence, what are the social/cultural and environmental consequences for individual non-human animals, their communities and ecosystems, when these animals are—to use Collard’s term— enclosed. Furthermore, Collard proposes that both commodity and animal fetishism are partly responsible for animals being objects of the global exotic pet trade. They are in demand because they are individual, controllable and encounterable, the latter referring to the tactile relationship humans have with non-human animals. These ideas raise important points and obstacles for addressing the global exotic pet trade. It is a strength of Collard’s study that she includes and discusses demand reduction, and observes that the USA’s total lack of engagement with demand reduction is problematic. In terms of Collard’s fieldwork, she undertakes a highly original ethnographic study that includes observations at live animal auctions at several locations in the USA, excursions on the Mexico–Guatemala border and volunteering at an animal rescue centre in Guatemala for a month. The combination produces interesting observations, particularly for geographical contexts that are largely ignored in the global discussions on legal and illegal wildlife trade. At her time at the auctions, Collard notes the tensions between the participants’ beliefs they could act as they liked regarding animals and what that meant for those animals: ‘But their freedom to buy and sell and own animals depends on animals’ lack of freedom’ (p. \uf738\uf738). She observes that at these auctions human values are dominant and with that comes the erasure of animals’ histories—as commodities and as complex social beings. To me, this thoughtfulness and sophisticated consideration could have been applied more broadly. For instance, in regard to the rescue centre in Guatemala attempting to return animals to nature, Collard rightly states: ‘This view of nature and wilderness is problematic not only for its colonial legacies but also for its treatment of animals as never belonging where “we” are, and as the passive objects to our own active subjectivity. ARCAS’s [the rescue centre] practices, then, leave the exceptional and distinct human subject both materially and discursively undisturbed’ (p. \uf731\uf731\uf737). This raises three points that, had they been addressed, would have made the argument more powerful. Firstly, if releasing animals is problematic because of the colonial origins and because it is anthropocentric, what then should happen to these animals? This is not expanded upon. Secondly, here, and at numerous other points in the book, Collard mentions the colonial underpinnings of elements of the wildlife trade. But she never questions the language she uses—‘exotic’ ‘pet’ trade—when the word exotic in particular is problematic for its links to colonization. Other vocabulary could also have been scrutinized, such as enclosed, when this is only used for inanimate objects, and captured rather than kidnapped, which has been proposed by green criminologist Ragnhild Sollund (Solund, \uf732\uf730\uf731\uf739, The Crimes of Wildlife Trafficking, Routledge, Abingdon, UK). Thirdly, Collard questions here, and in other places, the notion that there could or should be places where non-human animals are apart from humans. She at once argues for ‘the capacity of animals to lead wild lives, lives characterized by openness, possibility, a degree of choice, and self-determination, in which beings are understood to have their own familial, social, and ecological networks, their own lookouts, agendas, and needs’ (p. \uf731\uf733\uf731), while at the same time saying ‘This cannot be achieved by separating out a wilderness, a purely animal space’ (p. \uf731\uf733\uf731) without acknowledging the contradiction inherent in this. The question whether the non-human animals do not want to be around humans, and want a space of their own, is not asked. The points I have raised are obviously challenging obstacles to overcome in an effort to reduce animal exploitation. Collard clearly demonstrates in Animal Trafficking that she has much to contribute to these debates and in rethinking how human society regards non-human animals.