A newspaper article begins with a sub-headline implying that trophy hunting opponents base their stance on “myths” and that they ignore “scientific facts”. In truth, the shoe is on the other foot. Trophy hunting proponents have never been able to clearly show that trophy hunting actually benefits the survival and conservation of targeted species, and instead rely on soundbites and slogans. The list of species supposedly benefiting from trophy hunting in the article is laughable – none of them have flourished because of trophy hunting. Sure, rhino numbers have increased in South Africa, but only because they were placed in private ownership on game farms where the owners could do what they wanted with them. Trophy hunters were one source of income for these rhino farmers, but rhinos were removed from the wild to stock the farms, and no privately held rhino can in any way be seen to contribute to conservation of the wild population.
It is dumbfounding to see that lions are also on the list of species “conserved” by trophy hunters as there is absolutely no evidence of this – to the contrary, there are multiple examples where significant damage has been caused to lion populations living at the borders of national parks that abut hunting concessions.
Trophy hunting, as an industry, is said to benefit species’ conservation in instances where such hunting is “well-regulated, transparent and devolves sufficient authority to the land managers, it has the potential to contribute to … conservation”. In fact, “in many countries, poor governance and weak regulation can lead to unsustainable trophy hunting” ( wildcru.org) and trophy hunting operators flourish in corrupt nations.
As for “community support” – schools, clinics, fees paid, durable employment – there is precious little evidence as the trophy hunting industry has always worked under veils of opacity, tax avoidance, bribery, false financial reporting and similar murkiness.
Claims of “sustainable” hunting are largely unsatisfactory as the hunting operators do not allow independent assessments of trophy species’ population numbers in their areas – quotas are largely assigned on the basis of the operators’ own population counts and negotiations with wildlife authorities.
With regard to “saving millions of acres for wildlife” – the facts again are not there. This is most clearly evidenced by the lack of interest in current tenders for hunting areas, as 40% of former hunting areas in Zambia and up to 70% in Tanzania are so devoid of wildlife that hunting operators have lost all interest.
And finally, claims that hunting operators effectively control poaching in their concessions - there is no worse example of this myth than the Selous Game Reserve made up of 80% hunting blocks – where elephant carcasses were piled up high and deep during the recent poaching epidemic in Tanzania.
Trophy hunting is surely and emotional issue, and vocal proponents who continue to spread the hunting rhetoric will receive a backlash. As do those who take strong stands against the practice. The article again gets many things wrong in this regard – and this is an important distinction.
The current UK discussion involves plans to ban the imports of hunting trophies, not the practice of trophy hunting itself. Those writing letters to say the plan will interfere with the “rights” of African nations that have legalized trophy hunting are just plain wrong. Trophy hunters are still free to go to Africa to trophy hunt – they just might not be able to bring their trophies home in the future. This is very different in what is being falsely portrayed as a “ban on trophy hunting” and it is important to point out that any sovereign nation can put bans or restrictions on the products they allow to be imported.
It is high time that trophy hunting proponents deliver the scientific facts to support their cause rather than resorting to whining and nonsensical articles by pliant journalists. Only then there can be a true debate on the “conservation” value and benefits of trophy hunting instead of the current dependence on vague assertions.
As for the morality and ethics of trophy hunting (never discussed) those alone are sufficient cause to refuse further imports of the hunters’ spoils.