COMMENTARY Could risk of disease change bushmeat-butchering behavior? M. C. Monroe 1 & A. S. Willcox 2 1 School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Correspondence: Martha C. Monroe, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA. Tel: 1-352-846- 0878; Fax: 1-352-846-1277. Email: mcmonroe@ufl.edu doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00071.x LeBreton et al. (2006) have added yet another important consideration to the current bushmeat crisis that continues, largely unabated, in Central and West Africa. The issue of disease carried by wildlife to bushmeat hunting and butch- ering communities brings the medical profession into the collaborative effort to conserve hunted wildlife that includes local communities, resource extraction companies, govern- ments and politicians, and conservation scientists (see the review by Milner-Gulland, Bennett & the SCB 2002 Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group, 2003). We believe, however, that the value gained by associating disease risk to bushmeat conservation must be further evaluated before conservation organizations integrate disease risk into campaigns. Even LeBreton et al. (2006) admit that food supply, poverty and corruption must be addressed before the practice of harvest- ing bushmeat can be changed. In this commentary, we raise several questions that future researchers may consider and outline elements of a potentially successful public education campaign. There are three different steps to a behavior change. First, the audience must be aware of the problem or risk. Second, they must believe that the consequence of maintaining the status quo is harmful and real enough to them to make a change appealing. Third, they must change their behavior. At each step, barriers and challenges can doom a campaign. Past experience tells us that even when it is possible to promote awareness through education, people may not believe the hazard is important enough or that it could affect them. And even when people believe the risk is real and relevant, there is often little evidence that this knowl- edge promotes a change in behavior (McCaffrey, 2004). In the case of bushmeat hunting and butchering, there is apparently a large percentage of respondents who are aware of a risk. We do not know from this paper if the perceived risk reported by some butchers is a risk of disease as the authors assume. A respondent may have answered that touching blood is risky because of religious or cultural practices. For example, in Islam, it is considered haraam (unfit) to consume blood. Therefore, if the respondent was Muslim, it would be unclear if the risk of touching blood was from fear of disease or of haraam. In both Islam and Judaism, religious laws govern how both domestic and wild animals are butchered. A respondent may have perceived a risk of butchering bushmeat to be the same as butchering any domestic animal. In either of these hypothetical cases, associating a health risk with bushmeat would not be likely to change butchering behavior. Because hunters do not perceive a risk of infection from bushmeat and are arguably more susceptible than butchers, one must question exactly what risk the butchers perceive. We agree this could be a moot point because only 12% of the respondents reported Islam as their religion; however, as they were given only one option in the interview, this result might hide those who also hold animistic beliefs along with their acceptance of an organized religion. In some areas of rural Cameroon, local beliefs regarding killing, butchering and eating of both domestic and bushmeat coexist with Christianity. For example, in the Banyangi (Kenyang- speaking, sampled in LeBreton et al., 2006) regions of south-western Cameroon, some hunted animals such as pythons and leopards must be brought before traditional councils and then butchered by certain qualified members of a local cultural society (A. S. Willcox, pers. obs.). In these cases, if someone were to undertake the butchering of these animals without the approval of the local society leaders, the perceived butchering risk would most likely not be a disease risk, but rather a risk of punishment by the traditional society and animist beliefs. If we assume the perceived risk is of disease, we must wonder if the threat of illness is severe enough to warrant concern. Perceived risk is more likely to change behavior when there is an obvious connection between the risky behavior and personal health, and this connection is widely promoted by trusted sources. If illness does not immediately follow the risky behavior, if the illness could have many causes, and/or if the illness is merely inconvenient rather Animal Conservation 9 (2006) 368–369 c  2006 The Authors. Journal compilation c  2006 The Zoological Society of London 368 Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430