ANIMALS - Wildlife Conservation in China: Preserving the Habitat of China's Wild West - page 87

alternatives instead. 32 But Chinese policy statements invariably support traditional use
of both bear gall and musk. 33
Western-based critics of such farms have reason to hope that Chinese policy will change.
For many years, Chinese trade laws allowed the use of tiger bone in medicinal products
even as tigers were, officially, completely protected. This changed abruptly in 1993, when
central authorities decided to ban the use of tiger parts in trade outright. Thus, virtually
overnight, tiger breeding in China went from an enterprise premised on profiting from
the sale of bones to one premised on, well frankly it was never clear just what it would
be premised on. If Chinese authorities argued in 1992, as they currently do for bears, that
sale of bones from captive-reared tigers quenched demand and thus helped free-ranging
tigers, they switched sides in 1993, implicitly accepting the opposing argument. 34
One crucial conceptual difference, of course, is that tigers must be killed in order
for their bones to be used, whereas musk and gall come from captive animals that live
through the extraction process. This distinction seems to have helped Chinese officials
defend traditional use of these two products while making an about-face on tigers. In
any case, the policy for now—and as far as I can determine, for the near future—is that
traditional use of bear gall and musk will be supported. (It is probably a wise move, as
governments at all levels in China may lack credibility to persuade traditional users to
change their habits even if doing so were indeed the only way to save the species.) In the
case of bears, pressure to improve the sanitary and welfare conditions of bears has resulted
in a high-profile program to close small and poorly run facilities and invest more funds
into larger ones (but, pointedly, putting off any expectation that bear farming would be
phased out entirely as a vaguely defined “long-term objective” 35 ).
This then forces the next question: is captive breeding (and associated trade) helping
or hurting the wild bear and musk deer populations? The question is currently unanswer-
able because we lack reliable trend data on wild populations of musk deer and bears.
To answer the question, we would also need data on possible connections between the
independent variables (e.g., status of the captive populations, the strength of demand for
musk and gall, preference for free-ranging over artificially reared animal products, prices,
and perceived risks of apprehension) and the dependent variable, population trends of
musk deer and bears. 36 Particularly in the case of Asiatic black bears, lack of data has
not prevented the argument from becoming heated and heavy. A number of international
NGOs have agitated for the Chinese government to remove bear gall from the approved
pharmacopoeia, whereas Chinese officials have steadfastly maintained that because cap-
tive bears produce gall continuously and because bear gall in approved drugs comes from
breeding facilities, farmed bears save wild bears.
Lacking data (and not trusting in the transparency of Chinese systems), are there case
studies from other countries that we might use to extrapolate general principles? Can we
make any generalities about the effects of pursuing commercialization of captives on a
vulnerable, wild population? Alas, there seem to be few parallels to the situations facing
either musk deer or bears in China. In the nineteenth century, a number of fur-bearing
animals in North America were overharvested; commercial farming of such species as
red fox and mink emerged to meet market demand, and later, most fur bearers made a