Trophy hunting: Insufficient evidence.

摘要: In their Letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. [874][1]), A. Dickman et al. argue that banning trophy would be detrimental to conservation. We agree evidence for effectiveness is important before actions are taken. However, do not provide harm biodiversity ([ 1 ][2]). Dickman claim indirectly benefits because populations (and habitats) better protected in places or times where has occurred. no comprehensive research tested hypothesis. Even previous work by authors and Johnson (led Macdonald) concludes we know too little infer whether (selective recreation) contributes the conservation of wild lions 2 ][3])—one best-studied trophy-hunted species. Dickman overstate case. For example, “more land been conserved under than national parks” seems based on statement from Lindsey 3 ][4]) “[o]ver 1,394,000 km2 used sub-Saharan Africa, exceeding area encompassed parks 22% countries permitted” ][4]). this interpretation misleading those lands include private lands, areas allowed subsistence hunting, various other classes areas, exclusively concessions. addition, authors' prediction a ban imports hunts could just converse: Perhaps concessions upgraded protection catalyzing governmental rethinking carnivore management systems. An evidentiary basis informing controversial policy interventions, such as demands strong inference with full disclosure uncertainties disentangled value judgments observations inferences. Stronger might gleaned through adequate tests protecting hunted population, including broad-scale experiments using multiple replicated parcels subject either another putative form similar socioeconomic systems, tracking after (accounting threats). Rigorous examinations likely reveal outcomes vary geography, threats biodiversity, governance contexts. Finally, addition long list signatories implies call authority should play role what ultimately an evidence-based scientific debate. By contrast, clear evidence, transparently conveyed clearly demarcated ingrained values involved (whether they support reject hunting), help elucidate environmental, ethical, social, economic dimensions activity whose ultimate effects remain poorly understood. Dickman respond: “…[A]ction taken without its effectiveness…[but] believe burden proof lies who [the removal hunting]…” See [full response][5]. 1. [↵][6]1. Treves al ., Conserv. Biol. 33, 472 (2018). [OpenUrl][7] 2. [↵][8]1. D. W. Macdonald Mamm. Rev. 47, 247 (2017). [OpenUrl][9] 3. [↵][10]1. P. 134, 455 (2007). [OpenUrl][11] Correction (16 March 2020): Competing interest declarations F.J.S.-A. P.C.P. have added. A.T. President Board Directors Future Wildlife, tax-exempt organization mission preserve nature, especially animals, unpaid science adviser Project Coyote. Science Advisory Coyote associated IUCN species survival commission four specialist groups. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/874 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/435.1/tab-e-letters [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.spage%253D472%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMamm.%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D47%26rft.spage%253D247%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBiol.%2BConserv.%26rft.volume%253D134%26rft.spage%253D455%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx