Trophy Hunting: Does It Help or Hurt Conservation?: Proponents Argue
Trophy Hunting: Does It Help or Hurt Conservation?: Proponents Argue
Trophy Hunting: Does It Help or Hurt Conservation?: Proponents Argue
PROPONENTS ARGUE:
• It generates a significant proportion of the operational revenues of state wildlife authorities in some countries.
• It creates economic incentives for the retention of large areas of state land for wildlife in addition to National Parks
in the form of game reserves and wildlife management areas.
• It creates economic incentives for wildlife on both community and private land.
• It provides incentives for communities to coexist with wildlife where benefits from hunting are retained locally.
• In some areas, hunters contribute to anti-poaching and the presence of operators can help to reduce poaching,
human encroachment and other threats.
• It only targets post-reproductive males and so does not impact populations.
• It can operate in areas of low infrastructure or scenic appeal, under conditions of political instability where regular
tourism is generally not viable.
OPPONENTS ARGUE:
• It often targets males in their reproductive prime for a better trophy.
• It can lead to elevated infanticide and reduced reproduction by removing too many adult males, leading to
population declines.
• It is often a source of mortality due to other anthropogenic factors such as snaring and retaliatory killing.
• It can lead to government departments becoming dependent on revenue, providing incentive to keep quotas high.
• It is often carried out on the boundaries of national parks, siphoning off lions from protected populations.
• It often does not provide adequate revenues to manage and secure lands effectively.
• It often fails to divide revenues fairly with communities, and government agencies may be unwilling to devolve user
rights because they depend on hunting revenue for their core budget.
• It is subject to widespread abuse of regulations and is very difficult to control (as Cecil’s case illustrated).
• It often does not benefit those intended as corruption can prevent the revenue flow from trickling down to village
or individual level.
Proponents of breeding and canned hunts contend that they relieve pressure on wild populations by satisfying the
demand for wild hunts and lion bones from a captive-bred source. But there is no evidence for either claim. Canned
hunters are largely a different market to “fair chase” hunters, and the increase in captive lion hunts does little to reduce
the demand for wild hunts. Meanwhile, South Africa’s bone trade has created a legal conduit for lion bone that formerly
was not used in Asia. As some consumers believe wild sources are more efficacious than captive ones, it is inevitable
that parts of wild killed lions will enter the same trade routes.
Page - 14
SOLUTIONS
T he future of the lion in Africa hangs
in the balance. Although there is
a scattering of populations that are
conservation action. Africa still retains
truly vast areas of wilderness. Fortunately,
the iconic woodland savannas that lions
especially lion populations, have been
able to bounce back. Solutions exist and
they are not complicated, but will require
probably secure for the long-term, require are resilient. Wherever human a global response.
many more are under extreme pressure pressures have been reduced, these
and will disappear without concerted habitats, their wildlife populations, and