The illegal trafficking of wildlife is a prominent threat to biodiversity, human health and security, and sustainable development (Gore et al., 2019). The taxa and geographies impacted are diverse, as are the socioeconomic drivers of this illicit trade. As legal and illegal wildlife markets commingle and varied traditional uses of wildlife persist, evolve and converge across the planet, there are increasingly diverse actors participating, ranging from wildlife harvesters and intermediaries, who facilitate market transactions, to the final wildlife consumers (Phelps, Biggs & Webb, 2016). Unsurprisingly, there has been an exponential increase in research on wildlife crime among practitioners and scholars within the conservation and criminological sciences (Kahler & Gore, 2017; McFann & Pires, 2018). However, wildlife crime research has been largely qualitative or conceptual in orientation (McFann & Pires, 2018), biased toward the African context, focused predominantly on mammals and tends to be aimed at understanding ‘why’ (i.e. poacher perspective) rather than ‘how’ the crime takes place (Kahler & Gore, 2017).

The study by Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) addresses many of these research gaps, by fusing qualitative and quantitative approaches of social network analysis to examine the typology of actors and the structure of the trade network of an endangered songbird in South America. Their focus on the trafficking of the Red Siskin (RS) Spinus cucullatus, a rare neo‐tropical finch species, within the context of Venezuela facilitates theory testing with implications for designing critical interventions to reduce their illegal trade. In an innovative and interdisciplinary approach, the authors test the hypothesis that these high‐valued birds would be subject to parallel trafficking, or movement alongside other illicit goods, given the situational factors of high corruption and criminality, and compromised governance and enforcement in Venezuela. Through the use of informants, expertise gleaned from prior research, and snowball sampling, the authors were able to conduct an impressive 108 interviews with a mixture of harvesters, intermediaries and consumers of the RS in Venezuela. Additionally, they compiled a complimentary database by monitoring online media platforms to find records of use, actors involved, and to better understand the geographic variations in RS demand and supply.

The findings of Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) constitute an alarm call for the RS in Venezuela and beyond. The authors point out that the estimated extraction rate of 70 individual birds per year in western Venezuela may not be comparable to the trade volume of other passerine species. However, they aptly assert that proportional to the remaining wild RS population, estimated to be a few thousand, reducing the illegal trade will be a necessary part of species recovery. Furthermore, Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) found no evidence that the trade of RS was parallel to other illicit goods. Rather they found the network under scrutiny consists of opportunistic and specialist commercial harvesters, a variety of intermediaries including vendors, launderers, processors and third‐party actors, and consumers that either owned or bred the birds. Additionally, their data suggest that a small group of specialized intermediary actors serve as a fulcrum within the supply network, connecting largely disconnected harvesters to markets. Lastly, Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) discover, in addition to domestic markets, evidence of regional and transcontinental trade. Data were indicative of Venezuela serving as a source to consumers as close as Colombia, Brazil, Mexico and the USA but also likely supplying breeders and consumers in the more distant markets of Europe and Asia.

The findings presented by Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) show many consistencies with criminological studies of parrot poaching in Bolivia (Pires & Clarke, 2011) and Mexico (Pires & Clarke, 2012) and markets in Bolivia and Peru (Pires, 2015). These studies focus on the characteristics of the specific parrot species and how these characteristics hamper or facilitate their illegal trade. Consistent with this literature, the findings show a prevalence of specialist commercial harvesters, which is likely driven by the decreasing abundance and accessibility of the bird in western Venezuela. Additionally, demand‐side factors in national and international markets are likely to play a role in increasing the number of intermediary actors during the trafficking stage as these facilitators connect increasingly specialized harvesters with affluent consumers (e.g. Pires, 2015). This study by Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) is complementary and timely, adding to our understanding of ‘how’ and ‘why’ diverse actors connect within an illegal rare avian market.

Survey research on illicit wildlife trafficking is subject to bias and low levels of cooperation among some actors (e.g. Kahler et al., 2019). The authors acknowledge the research biases that result from their sampling strategy and the use of the self‐reporting method. Nonethelss, the authors did not directly ask interviewees if they engaged in non‐RS‐related illegal activities, a central determinant of the parallel trafficking hypothesis. They rely on an arguable assumption that reporting their RS‐trade activities as risky may indicate additional criminal behaviors or that interviewees would willingly disclose additional, potentially more serious, criminal behavior. However, it has been found that interviewees may be willing to self‐report illicit behavior seen as less risky or serious while failing to disclose behaviors with higher risk or greater consequences (Junger‐Tas & Marshall, 1999). Additionally, those with more serious criminal profiles may refuse to participate in surveys all together, leading to non‐response bias (Junger‐Tas & Marshall, 1999).

In conclusion, Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) diligently acknowledge that future evidence may emerge indicating parallel trafficking of RS, while making the compelling case that there is a conservation need to respond to the current specialized RS trafficking network within Venezuela. The lessons learned from this novel study lend themselves to what the authors call an ‘induction’ approach, which leverages more targeted interventions at well‐connected, central actor types to change behavior along the supply chain from harvester to consumer. It is very likely that Sánchez‐Mercado et al. (2019) discovered ‘the tip of the RS trade iceberg (p. 10)’ in terms of the scale of illegal harvest, the actors involved, and the geographic scope. Studies like this are paramount to advance more robust conservation crime science (Kahler & Gore, 2017) and craft more nuanced and context‐specific interventions.

野生动植物的非法贩运是对生物多样性，人类健康与安全以及可持续发展的重大威胁（Gore等，2019）。受影响的分类单元和地域是多种多样的，这种非法贸易的社会经济驱动因素也是如此。随着合法和非法野生动植物市场的融合，以及野生动植物传统用途的持续，发展和融合，地球上越来越多的参与者参与其中，从促进市场交易的野生动植物收割者和中介机构，到最终的野生动植物消费者（菲尔普斯，比格斯＆Webb，2016年）。毫不奇怪，在保护和犯罪学领域，从业者和学者对野生动植物犯罪的研究呈指数增长（Kahler＆Gore，2017 ; McFann＆Pires，2018）。然而，野生动植物犯罪研究在很大程度上是定性的或概念性的（McFann＆Pires，2018），偏向非洲背景，主要侧重于哺乳动物，并且往往旨在了解“为什么”（即偷猎者的观点）而非“如何”犯罪发生（Kahler＆Gore，2017）。

Sánchez-Mercado等人的研究。（2019）通过融合社会网络分析的定性和定量方法来研究行为者的类型和南美濒危鸣鸟的贸易网络​​结构，从而解决了许多研究空白。他们关注委内瑞拉背景下的稀有新热带雀科物种Red Siskin（cuspinus cucullatus）的贩运，这有助于进行理论测试，对设计旨在减少其非法贸易的关键干预措施具有意义。在创新和跨学科的方法中，作者检验了以下假设：这些高价值的鸟类将遭受平行贩运考虑到高度腐败和犯罪的情况因素，以及委内瑞拉的治理和执法受到影响的情况，该行动或与其他非法物品一起流动。通过使用信息提供者，先前研究中获得的专业知识以及滚雪球采样，作者能够对委内瑞拉RS的收割者，中间人和消费者进行令人印象深刻的108次采访。此外，他们通过监视在线媒体平台来查找免费记录，所涉及的参与者并更好地了解RS需求和供应的地理差异，从而建立了一个免费数据库。

Sánchez-Mercado等的发现。（2019）对委内瑞拉及以后的RS发出了警报。作者指出，委内瑞拉西部每年估计有70只个体鸟类的提取率可能无法与其他雀形目物种的贸易量相提并论。但是，他们恰当地断言，与非法野生种群数量成比例（估计为几千），减少非法贸易将是物种恢复的必要部分。此外，Sánchez-Mercado等。（2019）没有发现任何证据表明RS的贸易与其他非法商品平行。相反，他们发现受审查的网络包括机会性和专业性的商业收割机，各种中间商，包括供应商，洗钱者，加工者和第三方参与者，以及拥有或繁殖禽类的消费者。此外，他们的数据表明，一小撮专门的中间行为者充当了供应网络内的支点，将很大程度上没有联系的收割机连接到了市场。最后，Sánchez-Mercado等。（2019），除了发现国内市场外，还发现区域和洲际贸易的证据。数据表明委内瑞拉是接近哥伦比亚，巴西，墨西哥和美国的消费者的来源，但也有可能向欧洲和亚洲较远的市场提供育种者和消费者。

Sánchez-Mercado等人提出的发现。（2019）显示了与玻利维亚（Pires＆Clarke，2011）和墨西哥（Pires＆Clarke，2012）以及墨西哥和玻利维亚和秘鲁（Pires，2015）市场的犯罪学研究有很多一致性）。这些研究集中于特定鹦鹉物种的特征以及这些特征如何阻碍或促进其非法贸易。与该文献一致的是，这些发现表明专业商业收割机的流行，这可能是由于委内瑞拉西部鸟类的丰度和可及性下降所致。此外，在国内和国际市场上，需求方因素可能会在贩运阶段增加中介人的数量方面发挥作用，因为这些促进者将越来越专业的收割者与富裕的消费者联系起来（例如Pires，2015年）。Sánchez-Mercado等人的这项研究。（2019）是互补的，及时的，从而加深了我们对在非法的稀有禽类市场内“不同的”参与者之间“如何”和“为什么”联系的理解。

野生动植物非法贩运的调查研究存在偏见，一些行为者之间的合作水平较低（例如Kahler等，2019）。作者承认，由于他们的抽样策略和使用自报告方法而导致的研究偏见。没什么，作者没有直接询问受访者是否从事与非RS相关的非法活动，这是平行贩运假说的主要决定因素。他们基于一个可辩驳的假设，即将其RS贸易活动报告为高风险可能表明有其他犯罪行为，或者受访者愿意透露其他可能更严重的犯罪行为。但是，已经发现，受访者可能愿意自我举报风险较小或严重的违法行为，而没有透露风险较高或后果更大的行为（Junger-Tas和Marshall，1999年））。此外，那些犯罪倾向更严重的人可能拒绝一起参加调查，从而导致无答复偏见（Junger-Tas＆Marshall，1999）。

总之，Sánchez-Mercado等。（2019）努力地认识到，未来的证据可能表明存在平行的RS贩运，同时提出了令人信服的论点，即需要对委内瑞拉目前的专门RS贩运网络做出回应。从这项新颖的研究中吸取的教训使作者称之为“归纳法”，该法利用了针对性强的干预措施，对联系紧密的中心行为者类型进行了针对性干预，从而改变了从收割者到消费者整个供应链的行为。Sánchez-Mercado等人很有可能 （2019）从非法收割的规模，涉及的参与者和地理范围方面发现了“ RS贸易冰山一角（第10页）”。此类研究对于推进更强大的保护犯罪科学（Kahler＆Gore，2017）和制定更细致入微且针对具体情况的干预至关重要。