Challender et al. (2021) recently drew attention to 32 scientific articles (including four that we coauthored) citing “mischaracterizations” and “misinterpretations” of wildlife trade and its impacts that “may mislead policy processes.” We agree with Challender et al. in that “accurately characterizing wildlife trade and understanding the impact it has on wildlife populations are critical to evaluating the potential threat trade poses to species and informing …. policy responses.” However, our wildlife trade articles (referred to therein) have been misrepresented by Challender et al. (2021), and we refute the intimation that any of these peer-reviewed scientific research papers may have misled policy processes.

Harrington et al. (2019) are cited as “assuming that use/trade [in Asian otters as exotic pets] constitutes a threat to species or is detrimental to wild populations.” In fact, we make no such assumption, and specifically state in Harrington et al. (2019), “it is not currently possible to assess the actual impact of the pet trade on wild otter populations in the region.” We go on to state that “…the precarious nature of wild populations of all otter species in this region, means that any additional, or increasing, pressure on wild populations, is a serious cause for concern….” (citing the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and a formal CITES document as sources), which we maintain provides crucial baseline information for any evidence-based policy process. Further, we argue that for this, and other vulnerable species subject to multiple potentially interacting pressures and lacking critical data, a precautionary approach (with respect to population status) is entirely appropriate.

Challender et al. (2021) also criticize D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016) for incorrectly assuming that source code “I” in the CITES trade database, used for confiscated or seized specimens, refers to illegal trade in our paper on the fate of confiscated live wild animals. This issue was responded to elsewhere (see D'Cruze & Macdonald, 2017) where we highlighted that in some cases, data assigned to Code “I” have been and remain a mixture (of unknown proportions) of both illegal seizure and legal re(export) incidents. We agree that researchers should beware of this potential pitfall, but maintain that the application of code I is not always straightforward. Moreover, since not all confiscated/seized specimens are included under Code “I,” far from misleading policy, the “error” made by D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016) meant that we only underestimated confiscations and the enormity of the problem.

Finally, while Challender et al. (2021) point out that D'Cruze and Macdonald (2015), D'Cruze and Macdonald (2016), and Can et al. (2019) incorrectly estimated transaction frequency, Challender et al. failed to acknowledge that this was a minor aspect of these papers and inconsequential in relation to impacts and policy processes. Specifically, inaccuracies over terminology used to describe transaction records do not alter the validity of D'Cruze and Macdonald's (2016) assertion that improved record keeping of seized CITES listed live wildlife would benefit animal welfare and conservation efforts for large numbers of animals, or Can et al.’s (2019), conclusion that the risks posed by pathogens (and of emerging zoonoses) associated with the wildlife trade should not be underestimated.

In summary, while we encourage scrutiny of the wildlife trade literature (our own and that of others) to ensure accuracy, we caution against misrepresenting published studies and conflating inconsequential inaccuracies with wrongful conclusions and inappropriate policy outcomes.

查兰德等人。（2021 年）最近提请注意 32 篇科学文章（包括我们合着的 4 篇），其中引用了对野生动物贸易的“错误描述”和“误解”及其“可能误导政策进程”的影响。我们同意 Challender 等人的观点。因为“准确描述野生动物贸易的特征并了解它对野生动物种群的影响对于评估贸易对物种构成的潜在威胁并告知……至关重要。政策反应。” 然而，我们的野生动物贸易文章（在其中提到）被 Challender 等人歪曲。（2021 年），我们驳斥了这些经过同行评审的科学研究论文中的任何一篇都可能误导了政策进程的暗示。

哈灵顿等人。（2019 年）被引用为“假设使用/贸易[在亚洲水獭中作为外来宠物]对物种构成威胁或对野生种群有害。” 事实上，我们没有做出这样的假设，并在 Harrington 等人中特别说明了这一点。( 2019 )，“目前无法评估宠物贸易对该地区野生水獭种群的实际影响。” 我们继续声明“ ……该地区所有水獭物种的野生种群的不稳定性质，意味着对野生种群的任何额外或增加的压力，都是令人担忧的严重原因……”（引用 IUCN 濒危物种红色名录和一份正式的 CITES 文件作为来源），我们维护这些文件为任何基于证据的政策过程提供了重要的基线信息。此外，我们认为，对于这种情况以及其他易受多种潜在相互作用压力且缺乏关键数据的脆弱物种，采取预防措施（关于种群状况）是完全合适的。

查兰德等人。（2021 年）还批评 D'Cruze 和 Macdonald（2016 年）错误地假设 CITES 贸易数据库中用于没收或扣押标本的源代码“I”指的是我们关于没收活体野生动物命运的论文中的非法贸易. 这个问题在其他地方得到了回应（见 D'Cruze & Macdonald, 2017) 我们强调，在某些情况下，分配给代码“I”的数据一直是并且仍然是非法扣押和合法再（出口）事件的混合（比例未知）。我们同意研究人员应该提防这个潜在的陷阱，但坚持认为代码 I 的应用并不总是那么简单。此外，由于并非所有没收/扣押的标本都包含在代码“I”中，因此远非误导性政策，D'Cruze 和 Macdonald（2016 年）所犯的“错误”意味着我们只是低估了没收和问题的严重性。

最后，虽然 Challender 等人。( 2021 ) 指出 D'Cruze and Macdonald ( 2015 )、D'Cruze and Macdonald ( 2016 ) 以及 Can 等人。( 2019 ) 错误估计的交易频率，Challender 等人。未能承认这是这些文件的一个次要方面，与影响和政策过程无关。具体而言，用于描述交易记录的术语不准确并不会改变 D'Cruze 和 Macdonald ( 2016 ) 断言的有效性，即改进对被 CITES 所列活体野生动物扣押的记录保存将有利于动物福利和对大量动物的保护工作，或者可以等人的（2019)，得出的结论是，不应低估与野生动物贸易相关的病原体（和新出现的人畜共患病）带来的风险。

总之，虽然我们鼓励审查野生动物贸易文献（我们自己的和其他人的）以确保准确性，但我们警告不要歪曲已发表的研究并将无关紧要的不准确与错误的结论和不适当的政策结果混为一谈。