The continuing debates about trophy hunting should be underpinned by an understanding of at least the basic characteristics of the practice (e.g. species, quotas, areas, prices). Whilst many countries in Asia have established trophy hunting programmes of considerable importance to conservation and local livelihoods, there remains some ambiguity over the extent of trophy hunting in Asia as its basic characteristics in each country have not been compiled. In this study, we compile information on various ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of trophy hunting of mammals for countries across Asia by reviewing published and unpublished literature, analysing trade data, and obtaining contributions from in-country contacts. Across Asia, established trophy hunting programmes exist in at least 11 countries and target at least 30 species and one hybrid (incl., five Vulnerable and one Endangered species). Trophy hunting in these countries varies markedly in areas (e.g. >1 million km 2 in Kazakhstan, 37% of country, vs. 1325 km 2 in Nepal, <1% of country) and annual offtakes (e.g. Kazakhstan: 4500 individuals from 4 of 5 trophy species; Pakistan: 229 from 4 of 7; Mongolia: 155 from 6 of 9; Tajikistan: 126 from 3 of 6; Nepal: 22 from 3 of the 4 that are trophy hunted in practice). Permit prices also vary across species and countries, with domestic and international hunters sometimes charged different rates. Hunters from the USA appear overwhelmingly prominent among international clients. National legislations typically mandate a proportion of trophy hunting revenue to accrue locally (range: 40-100%). We provide five key recommendations for research to inform trophy hunting policy in Asia: (1) Ecological impact assessments;(2) Socioeconomic impact assessments; (3) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to conservation spending; (4) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework; (5) Further examinations of perceptions of trophy hunting.

No abstract

Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) can have significant and deleterious impacts. Academic-practitioner knowledge exchange can improve the effectiveness of strategies to counter IWT; however, cases of inadequate knowledge exchange have been reported. To explore the challenges to academic-practitioner knowledge exchange on IWT, we conducted three workshops in the United Kingdom with a total of 10 academics from five universities and 15 practitioners from nine organisations that work on IWT, plus one interview with a senior conservation practitioner. We identified five main challenges, including general differences in the aims and worldviews of academics versus practitioners; poor communication; and the large size, diversity, and dynamism of networks working on IWT. Stretched resources, particularly insufficient time and funding, accentuate these challenges. The challenges we identified align with the challenges experienced in other areas of conservation, but some aspects are particularly acute for IWT. Our identification and description of these main challenges to academic-practitioner knowledge exchange on IWT could guide efforts to address them in current or future work on IWT. Also, as shown, consideration of our findings alongside relevant literature flag measures that could contribute towards countering the identified challenges to academic-practitioner knowledge exchange on IWT.