D'Cruze et al. (2022) and Frank and Wilcove (2022) suggest that Challender et al. (2021) misrepresent their research. We reiterate that our intention was not to denigrate any particular study; instead, we aimed to draw attention to contemporary issues in wildlife trade research and highlight ways for research to better inform policy processes. Here, we respond to the points raised in these articles.

D'Cruze et al. suggest that we were incorrect to deduce from Harrington et al. (2019) that their position is that “use/trade [in Asian otters as exotic pets] constitutes a threat to the species or is detrimental to wild populations.” This is despite the title of that article being “Popularity of pet otters on YouTube: evidence of an emerging trade threat.” It is difficult to reconcile this title and statements within the article with the assertion that Harrington et al. did not conclude that the pet trade posed a threat to wild populations of Asian otters.

However, our primary concern is that Harrington et al.’s analysis of trends in popularity of social media videos of pet otters makes the jump to strongly endorsing an international trade policy (specifically, including two otter species in CITES Appendix I) despite the authors acknowledging that there is no evidence of a link between social media trends and trade trends. Trade bans via CITES may be considered as a sensible precautionary measure by some, but in some instances, they may do more harm than good for species (Challender et al., 2021). To avoid this scenario, the risks and benefits of such proposals should be fully assessed (Cooney et al., 2021).

Regarding CITES source code “I,” users of data with this source code should be aware that CITES Parties use this code in various ways and therefore be clear whether data refer to illegal trade or legal (re-)exports of previously seized specimens. Otherwise, trade is likely to be mischaracterized (Lopes et al., 2017). A better method of characterizing illegal trade in CITES-listed species would be to use other available databases (see Supporting Information in Challender et al., 2021) and CITES source code “I” data that can be categorically identified as referring to illegal trade. Regarding Can et al.’s (2019) conclusion that “risks posed by pathogens…associated with the wildlife trade should not be under-estimated,” we agree and add that neither should they be overestimated. Both carry the risk of misleading policy processes.

D'Cruze et al. also argue that their errors relating to transaction frequency in CITES trade data were minor and do not fundamentally alter their conclusions. While we acknowledge this, our concern remains that if mistakes made in published articles on wildlife trade are not addressed, there is a risk that they will be perpetuated by other authors in the future.

We agree with Frank and Wilcove (2022) that the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (hereafter “Red List”) can be used to inform the potential adoption of trade measures in CITES. Indeed, the Red List has informed CITES processes since its inception, and the potential for closer alignment is currently being explored.

However, Frank and Wilcove (2022) claim that Challender et al. (2021) believe that “…CITES protection (via Appendices I and II) should be reserved for vanishing species whose main threat is international trade …” and cite the Convention text as justification for including species in CITES when trade may only be a contributing threat. They misrepresent our main point, namely that, based on lessons learnt in preceding decades (Cooney et al., 2021), species should be listed based on evidence that doing so is likely to contribute to (and not potentially undermine) their conservation. The precautionary principle which underpins conservation policy is not unidirectional and it cannot be assumed that tighter regulation of international trade, including bans, is always the most precautionary policy option.

One of our major criticisms of Frank and Wilcove (2019) was that their recommendations were poorly developed, overlooking critical factors that would impede real-world adoption (Challender et al., 2021). There is far more exposition and “nuance” in their response to our commentary than their original article. We encourage researchers suggesting wildlife trade policy reforms to recognize and address the potential challenges in realistic terms, not least to ensure credibility with those who make and implement policy.

Finally, we do not claim in Challender et al. (2021) that specific studies have misled policy; however, where wildlife trade data are interpreted inaccurately in research articles, there is potential to mislead policy processes, and to undermine the role of academic research in informing these processes. We would welcome collaboration with researchers interested in working with us to develop best practice guidelines that ensure that wildlife trade policy is based on the best evidence, appropriately interpreted.

D'Cruze 等人。( 2022 ) 和 Frank 和 Wilcove ( 2022 ) 建议 Challender 等人。( 2021 ) 歪曲他们的研究。我们重申，我们的意图不是诋毁任何特定的研究；相反，我们旨在引起人们对野生动物贸易研究中当代问题的关注，并强调研究方法以更好地为政策进程提供信息。在这里，我们回应这些文章中提出的观点。

D'Cruze 等人。表明我们从 Harrington 等人的推论中是不正确的。（2019 年）他们的立场是“使用/交易[在亚洲水獭中作为外来宠物]对该物种构成威胁或对野生种群有害。” 尽管那篇文章的标题是“ YouTube 上宠物水獭的流行：新兴贸易威胁的证据”。很难将文章中的这个标题和陈述与 Harrington 等人的断言相协调。没有得出宠物贸易对亚洲水獭野生种群构成威胁的结论。

然而，我们主要担心的是，Harrington 等人对宠物水獭社交媒体视频流行趋势的分析，使得他们强烈支持一项国际贸易政策（特别是包括 CITES 附录 I 中的两种水獭），尽管作者承认没有证据表明社交媒体趋势与贸易趋势之间存在联系。通过 CITES 实施的贸易禁令可能被某些人视为明智的预防措施，但在某些情况下，它们对物种的弊大于利（Challender 等人，2021 年）。为避免这种情况，应全面评估此类提案的风险和收益（Cooney 等人，2021 年）。

关于 CITES 源代码“I”，使用此源代码的数据用户应了解 CITES 缔约方以各种方式使用此代码，因此应清楚数据是指非法贸易还是先前扣押标本的合法（再）出口。否则，贸易很可能会被错误地描述（Lopes et al., 2017）。表征 CITES 所列物种非法贸易的更好方法是使用其他可用数据库（参见 Challender 等人的支持信息，2021 年）和 CITES 源代码“I”数据，这些数据可以分类识别为指非法贸易。关于 Can 等人的 ( 2019) 结论“不应低估与野生动物贸易相关的病原体带来的风险”，我们同意并补充说，也不应高估它们。两者都存在误导政策过程的风险。

D'Cruze 等人。还争辩说，他们在 CITES 贸易数据中与交易频率有关的错误很小，不会从根本上改变他们的结论。尽管我们承认这一点，但我们仍然担心，如果未解决已发表的有关野生动物贸易的文章中的错误，则它们将来可能会被其他作者延续。

我们同意 Frank 和 Wilcove ( 2022 ) 的观点，即 IUCN 濒危物种红色名录（以下简称“红色名录”）可用于为 CITES 中可能采取的贸易措施提供信息。事实上，红色名录从一开始就为 CITES 进程提供了信息，目前正在探索更紧密协调的可能性。

然而，Frank and Wilcove ( 2022 ) 声称 Challender 等人。（2021 年）认为“ ……CITES 保护（通过附录 I 和 II）应保留给 主要 威胁是国际贸易的正在消失的物种…… ”并引用公约文本作为将物种纳入 CITES 的理由，而贸易可能只是一个促成威胁. 它们歪曲了我们的主要观点，即基于过去几十年的经验教训（Cooney et al., 2021)，物种应根据证据表明这样做可能有助于（而不是潜在地破坏）其保护。支持保护政策的预防原则不是单向的，不能假设对国际贸易进行更严格的监管，包括禁令，始终是最预防的政策选择。

我们对 Frank 和 Wilcove（2019 年）的主要批评之一是他们的建议发展不力，忽略了阻碍现实世界采用的关键因素（Challender 等人，2021 年）。他们对我们评论的回应比他们的原始文章有更多的阐述和“细微差别”。我们鼓励研究人员提出野生动物贸易政策改革建议，以现实的方式认识和应对潜在挑战，尤其是确保政策制定者和实施者的可信度。

最后，我们在 Challender 等人中没有主张。( 2021 ) 特定研究误导了政策；然而，如果研究文章中对野生动物贸易数据的解释不准确，就有可能误导政策过程，并破坏学术研究在为这些过程提供信息方面的作用。我们欢迎有兴趣与我们合作制定最佳实践指南的研究人员合作，以确保野生动物贸易政策基于最佳证据并得到适当解释。