“The Dark Web Trades Wildlife, but Mostly for Use As Drugs”, Oliver C. Stringham, Jacob Maher, Charlotte R. Lassaline, Lisa Wood, Stephanie Moncayo, Adam Toomes, Sarah Heinrich, Freyja Watters, Charlotte Drake, Sebastian Chekunov, Katherine G. W. Hill, David Décary-Hetu, Lewis Mitchell, Joshua V. Ross, Phillip Cassey2023-05-03 ()⁠:

  1. Contemporary wildlife trade is massively facilitated by the Internet. By design, the dark web is one layer of the Internet that is difficult to monitor and continues to lack thorough investigation.

  2. Here, we accessed a comprehensive database of dark web marketplaces to search across c. 2 million dark web advertisements over 5years using c. 7k wildlife trade-related search terms.

  3. We found 153 species traded in 3,332 advertisements (c. 600 advertisements per year). We characterized a highly specialized wildlife trade market, where c. 90% of dark-web wildlife advertisements were for recreational drugs.

  4. We verified that 68 species contained chemicals with drug properties. Species advertised as drugs mostly comprised of plant species, however, fungi and animals were also traded as drugs. Most species with drug properties were psychedelics (45 species), including one genera of fungi, Psilocybe, with 19 species traded on the dark web. The native distribution of plants with drug properties were clustered in Central and South America.

    A smaller proportion of trade was for purported medicinal properties of wildlife, clothing, decoration, and as pets.

  5. Synthesis & applications: Our results greatly expand on what wildlife species are currently traded on the dark web and provide a baseline to track future changes. Given the low number of advertisements, we assume current conservation and biosecurity risks of the dark web are low. While wildlife trade is rampant on other layers of the Internet, particularly on e-commerce and social media sites, trade on the dark web may still increase if these popular platforms are rendered less accessible to traders (eg. via an increase in enforcement). We recommend focusing on surveillance of e-commerce and social media sites, but we encourage continued monitoring of the dark web periodically to evaluate potential shifts in wildlife trade across this more occluded layer of the Internet.

2. Method: We accessed a dark-web database collected by the DATACRYPTO software (described in Décary-Hétu & Aldridge2015). At the time we accessed DATACRYPTO (May 2021), the database spanned c. 5.6 years (2014 July 29–2020 March 6) and contained c. 1.94 million advertisements across 51 marketplaces (ie. dark-web websites). Each advertisement contained the following information: a unique identifier, a marketplace identifier, a seller identifier, the date, the title of advertisement and the text description taken directly from the advertisement. The names of the marketplaces and the identities of the sellers were de-identified by DATACRYPTO prior to us obtaining the data.