TWO QUESTIONNAIRES WERE SENT OUT TO EACH NATIONAL CENTRAL BUREAU TO ASCERTAIN WHICH COUNTRIES WERE EXPORTING THEIR INDIGENOUS WILD ANIMALS AND WERE THEREFORE LIABLE TO VICTIMIZATION THROUGH ILLICIT ANIMAL TRAFFICKING AND WHICH COUNTRIES WERE IMPORTERS OF WILD ANIMALS FROM ABROAD. THE FORMER CATEGORY OF COUNTRIES WERE QUERIED ON THE SCALE OF ITS EXPORTS, AND ITS LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES RESTRICTING WILD ANIMAL EXPORTS. ANIMAL IMPORTING COUNTRIES REPORTED ON THE SPECIES OF ANIMALS BOUGHT AND THE TYPE OF IMPORT CONTROLS IN EFFECT. THE REPLIES SHOWED THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT OF UNIVERSAL INTEREST, SINCE ONLY 25 COUNTRIES REPORTED WILD ANIMAL EXPORTS AND 27 REPORTED BEING IMPORTERS. SIX EXPORTER COUNTRIES ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WILD ANIMALS ARE BEING ILLEGALLY EXPORTED FROM THEIR TERRITORIES. ONE IMPORTING COUNTRY REPORTED ILLEGAL SMUGGLING OF WILDLIFE FROM ABROAD. ALL EXPORTING COUNTRIES ATTESTED TO THE EXISTENCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION LAWS RESTRICTING CAPTURE AND EXPORT OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY, HOWEVER, USUALY RESTS WITH SOME AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE POLICE. AMONG IMPORTING COUNTRIES, 33 HAVE CONTROLS THAT ARE LIKEWISE ENFORCED BY AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE POLICE AGENCIES, USUALLY OF A FINANCIAL OR VETERINARY NATURE. THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION IN SMUGGLING ACTIVITY TRANSMITTED FROM AN EXPORTING COUNTRY, COULD BE CHANNELED THROUGH NATIONAL CENTRAL BUREAUS AND WOULD BE RESPECTED. NEVERTHELESS, SINCE THE MAIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING WILD ANIMALS AND CONTROLLING THEIR IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTS WITH AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE POLICE, INTERPOL INVOLVEMENT COULD HAVE ONLY MARGINAL EFFECT. THE APPENDIX SUMMARIZES INTERPOL INTERVENTION POSSIBILITIES IN EXPORTER COUNTRIES. (MRK)