Last semester in my conservation biology class, my professor introduced me to the idea of using trophy hunting as a tool for the conservation of large, terrestrial mammals. This idea piqued my curiosity because it is seemingly contradictory: How can killing individuals ultimately be beneficial to conservation efforts?
Trophy hunting is defined as the hunting of animals with large, desirable characteristics, such as horns, antlers, or manes. Individuals typically pay steep prices to hunt and take home their trophies. Examples of animals that are commonly hunted as trophies include elephants, lions, and bighorn sheep.
A widely publicized example of trophy hunting occurred in 2015 with the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, by a dentist from my home state of Minnesota. I remember the extensive media coverage and outrage this event caused, however it has since been noted that conservation in Africa remains underfunded and little has actually changed since “Cecilgate”.
Advocates assert that if trophy hunting is well-managed with strict quotas, the hunted populations will not decline over time. They argue that if hunters target the older males in a population, they will have already reproduced, so hunting them will not damage their numbers in the long-term. Supporters of trophy hunting also claim that conservation efforts need the revenue produced from hunting in order to keep wild habitat profitable. In addition, trophy hunting has many benefits for rural communities living near wildlife refuges. These include monetary benefits from hunters and leftover meat from hunting. Blanket trophy hunting bans risk many impoverished communities being cut off from a source of income and food.
Opponents of trophy hunting claim that it is a hobby reserved for the rich. In fact, approximately 80% of trophy hunters worldwide are American, according to CBS News. This means that although trophy hunting occurs on every continent except Antarctica, it is done by a relatively small, niche group of people. Many opponents of trophy hunting argue that animals have intrinsic value, and should not be hunted for sport out of respect for wild species. Opponents of trophy hunting claim that tourism is a viable economic replacement for the conservation funding that is raised by hunting.
So what is the story with trophy hunting? Do the ecological, economic, and social benefits outweigh the costs? Or should trophy hunting and trophy imports be banned, as is being proposed by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union?
Many studies have been conducted to test the impact of well-managed trophy hunting on wild populations, including white rhinoceros, bighorn sheep, lion, and argali, a wild sheep native to Central Asia. However, the results are variable depending on the species and regulations that were imposed.
For example, hunting of white rhinoceros began in South Africa and Namibia in 2004. Since the start of this program, white rhino populations have increased by 67%, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This is largely due to trophy hunting providing monetary incentives for landowners to provide a safe and healthy habitat for wildlife. Additionally, the income being generated from trophy hunting is being used to further conservation efforts and stop rhino poachers.
In contrast, a 2018 study by Mweetwa et al. showed that after a ban on trophy hunting, a lion population in Zambia increased from 116 individuals to 209 individuals. Furthermore, the population consisted of younger lions, with a higher proportion of males. This is beneficial for the future reproduction and growth of the lion population.
These two studies suggest that the effects of trophy hunting bans vary widely depending on the species’ behavioral and reproductive ecology. Therefore, blanket bans on trophy hunting may help some species, while hurting others. Likewise, unregulated or poorly-managed hunting is not beneficial for conservation, either.
From an economic prospective, trophy hunting is important to conservation because it is a major source of income for many natural parks worldwide. Catherine E. Semcer, a research fellow with the Property and Environment Research Center, explains why conservation funding is such a widespread issue when she says, “In much of the world, especially in emerging markets like Africa, habitat conservation depends on making wildlife economically competitive with other land uses”. In other words, habitat loss is a major threat to wildlife, and in order to reverse this trend we must make wildlife parks and reserves more profitable than farming, raising livestock, or urbanization.
For example, Bubye Valley Conservancy (BVC) is a 1,200 square mile private hunting reserve located in Zimbabwe. Before being converted to a wildlife reserve in the 1990s, Bubye was a cattle ranch. Over 80% of BVC’s annual $2.5 million budget is obtained from trophy hunting, according to CBS News. This budget includes costs associated with park maintenance, employee salaries, and local community development projects. The money generated from trophy hunting also helps to fund the Bubye anti-poaching task force, which protects critically endangered species, such as the black rhino.
If trophy hunting were to be banned, reserves and anti-poaching efforts such as those found at Bubye would be left struggling to find funding.
Although the call to ban trophy hunting is coming from countries in Europe and North America, these are not the same people who will face economic hardship from this decision. In order for a full trophy hunting ban to be ecologically and economically successful, there would need to be a plan in place to replace the lost revenue from trophy hunting, so that natural wildlife reserves would continue to exist (Semcer, 2019).
Trophy hunting also has many social benefits for the communities living near the reserves. Local communities may receive income from trophy hunting on their lands, meat from hunting, and employment from the trophy hunting industry.
Zimbabwe, for example, participates in the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). This program allows indigenous communities to participate in land and wildlife management. CAMPFIRE has generated over $20 million for participating communities, with 89% of this being directly from trophy hunting, according to a review paper by Muposhi et al.
Additionally, Bubye Valley Conservancy donates part of their profits to community development projects each year. BVC also donates meat to local communities, which is their main source of protein.
These benefits incentivize local communities to conserve their land for wildlife, rather than converting it for agriculture or livestock.
Imposing restrictions from countries in Europe and North America would minimize local wildlife management decision-making in rural, marginalized communities. Well-managed trophy hunting is not possible through laws passed in distant countries; instead, it must be done in the country where the hunting is taking place to be the most socially effective.
Many people who oppose trophy hunting suggest that photo-tourism is a viable economic replacement for trophy hunting profits. However, areas that have ecologically benefitted from trophy hunting often lack the development, connection to cities, and political soundness to be feasible for tourism.
Photo-tourism and trophy hunting typically go hand-in-hand already, with many hunting reserves employing both activities in order to make more profit. Similar to trophy hunting, if photo-tourism is not well-regulated, it can cause serious ecological damage.
According a briefing on trophy hunting by the IUCN, instead of converting all land that was previously used for trophy hunting to tourism, an alternative is to encourage local communities to manage their land for species conservation.
Additionally, it is important that land used for conservation is more profitable than it would be if it were used for agriculture or human development.
In lieu of trophy hunting bans, hunting programs can be assessed in terms of their compliance with the established trophy hunting best practices, as outlined by the IUCN. These ensure that wildlife management is done properly, revenue is accurately reported, and nearby communities are receiving their due benefits.
Since the ecological benefits of trophy hunting vary species to species, I think that it is important to consider this issue on a case by case basis. I do not support a blanket ban on trophy hunting due to its economic and social benefits.
Trophy hunting with quotas established based on species’ ecology and demographics has the potential to be beneficial for future conservation efforts. However, it is vital to monitor and adjust trophy hunting quotas based upon species demographics and abundances on a regular basis for this approach to be effective.
Focusing solely on banning trophy hunting will not stop wild populations from declining. Although trophy hunting can be a threat to large species if not well-managed, the most daunting threat to terrestrial species is habitat loss and degradation. Most of this habitat loss is due to converting land for agricultural purposes, and other economic-related activities.
If trophy hunting can help fund habitat restoration, I think this can be a beneficial conservation practice for large, terrestrial species.
References
Mkono, M. 2018. “Outrage over Cecil the lion slaying three years ago left little in its wake”. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/outrage-over-cecil-the-lion-slaying-three-years-ago-left-little-in-its-wake-99163.
Muposhi, V. K., Gandiwa, E., Makuza, S. M., Bartels, P. 2017. “Ecological, physiological, and genetic tradeoffs and socio-economic implications of trophy hunting as a conservation tool: a narrative review”. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314437269_Ecological_physiological_genetic_trade-offs_and_socio-economic_implications_of_trophy_hunting_as_a_conservation_tool_A_narrative_review
Mweetwa, T., Christianson, D., Becker, M., Creel, S., Rosenblatt, E., Merkle, J., Droge, E., Mwape, H., Masonde, J., Simpamba, T. 2018. “Quantifying lion (Panthera leo) demographic response following a three-year moratorium on trophy hunting”. PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197030.
Padney, M. 2019. “Scientists: Banning trophy hunting ‘doesn’t protect animals’”. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49524189.
Roe, D., Cremona, P. 2016. “Informing Decisions on Trophy Hunting”. International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_sept_briefing_paper_-_informingdecisionstrophyhunting.pdf.
Semcer, C. E. 2019. Conservationists Should Support Trophy Hunting. Property and Environment Research Center. https://www.perc.org/2019/09/06/conservationists-should-support-trophy-hunting/.
Yamaguchi, A. 2019. “Trophy hunting: killing or conservation?”. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trophy-hunting-killing-or-conservation/.