Right: guests relax around the firepit of an African hunting lodge. These establishments are big business and bring much-needed foreign currency to African economies.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments supporting the controlled trophy hunting of animals
1. Trophy hunting is an industry that provides foreign capital and employment
It has been claimed that trophy hunting is a valuable source of employment as well as having other side benefits which assist African village communities.
On August 15, 2015 VOA's Johannesburg correspondent, Gilliam Parker, stated, 'The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year. The industry employs about 70,000 people. In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa and trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country.'
Similarly, Marina Lamprecht of Hunters Namibia Safaris has stated, 'Trophy hunting creates thousands of jobs and therefore supports thousands of families. In my own trophy hunting operation we employ 20 people as well as feed 288 children at a local village school with venison from the trophy hunt - without hunters these children would not have regular access to protein.'
In a report prepared by SCI: First for Hunters the following claims were made, 'Trophy hunting alone currently generates $US20 million annually in Botswana and more than 1,000 jobs... $US100 million was generated by foreign trophy hunters in South Africa in 2000 with estimates surging to nearly $US137 million per year if multiplier effects and secondary industries are considered... In Tanzania, trophy hunting employs approximately 3,700 people annually with 2,282 individuals are permanently employed by trophy hunting with another 2,000 seasonally employed who in turn support a minimum of 88,240 families...'
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on August 7, 2015, Melville Saayman, Professor of Tourism Management and Economics at North-West University summed up what he believes are the economic advantages trophy hunting offers Botswana. Professor Saayman stated, 'It is also important to understand where and how hunters spend money when they take a hunting trip. Firstly, there's transport: travel costs, including flights and moving to the location. Then they need accommodation, food and drinks. Finally, it costs money to book the species they are hunting, the professional hunters who ensure permits are obtained, trackers, skinners and taxidermists.
'Aside from employment opportunities, communities also benefit. In most cases the carcasses are donated or sold at a cheap rate to communities, since the trophy hunters cannot transport the meat so only take the horns and skin. These hunters are big spenders, investing on average more than $US10 000 per trip, which is considerably higher than the average spending by any other type of tourist. The ban, therefore, implies a loss in taxes, foreign exchange and jobs.'
2. Eco-tourism can damage the environment and is not always a viable, stand-alone alternative to trophy hunting
It has been noted that far from being a boon to animal conservation, eco-tourism can actually harm natural environments.
In an article published in California Magazine on August 3, 2015, Glen Martin outlined some environmental disadvantages of eco-tourism as practised in Kenya. Martin suggested that eco-tourism harmed the local environment and led to greater pressure on native species. He stated, 'First, these [tourist] lodges constitute permanent physical footprints on the wild landscape. They require roads and other infrastructure, and thus fragment wildlife habitat. Locals tend to congregate around them, driving game further afield.'
Martin went on to explain, 'Further, many of the lodges are owned by foreign entrepreneurs and corporations, and the profits tend to trickle up to their proprietors and Kenya's deeply corrupt oligarchs, not down to the poor farmers and herdsmen on the land.'
It has also been claimed that eco-tourism is not always an option for impoverished communities in need of additional income.
Wilderness Salaris, one of South Africa's leading photo-tourism operators, has a position statement on trophy hunting that states: 'There are areas [of Africa] that cannot support high-end, mid-range or even low-end photographic ecotourism. It is in these areas especially that hunting (conducted ethically, responsibly and sustainably) has a role to play. This has been true even in stable developed tourism industries like South Africa's, and is certainly true in less mainstream destinations like the Central African Republic or Burkina Faso.'
Similarly Safari Club International, a pro-hunting group, has argued, '[T]he surest way to persuade an indigenous population to preserve animals is by giving those animals financial value. And the surest way to give them value is to allow them to be hunted, with the locals getting the proceeds.'
It has also been pointed out that frequently the two types of industry - ecotourism and trophy hunting - need to operate together in a region if economic benefits are to be gained.
3. Trophy hunting can be regulated to protect animal populations from over-exploitation
It has been claimed that the African countries that allow hunting manage it carefully so it is sustainable - by not allowing hunting of animals still capable of breeding, for example.
It is in their interests to ensure a $200 million industry is not lost. Much of this money is all they can afford for genuine conservation work.
Namibia has been held up as an example of an African nation where the commercialisation of wildlife, including the selling of licences to trophy hunters has seen an increase in wildlife numbers because local communities have a vested interest in ensuring quotas are abided by..
In an article published in California Magazine on August 3, 2015, Glen Martin detailed the quota system employed in the Salambala Conservancy in Caprivi, a northern Namibian province of 230,000 acres. Martin explained, 'The community and the central government have established sustainable annual quotas for almost every species inhabiting the land, right down to game birds: 50 impala, seven African buffalo, fifty zebras, four kudus, four waterbucks, four hippos, three crocodiles, three baboons, two black-backed jackals, 100 white-faced ducks, 150 turtle doves, 50 guinea fowl, and 70 red-billed francolins. The quota for elephants is eight, with six going to trophy hunters, one dedicated to the community's chief and elders, and one reserved for distribution among conservancy members.'
Martin concludes, 'The community keeps all income generated from trophy hunters and meat sales. Prior to independence and the establishment of Salambala, any Subia community member who poached an animal likely would have met with praise; his act would've meant meat for family, friends and neighbors. Now, the illegal taking of game is considered a major offense, theft from the community as a whole.'
It has further been claimed that wildlife populations are most at risk in countries where hunting is banned and where, therefore, there is no attempt at regulation. Referring to the situation in Kenya, Dr Richard Leakey, paleoanthropologist, conservationist, and the first director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, has stated, '(Thousands) of animals are being killed annually with no control. Snaring, poisoning, and shooting are common things. So when you have a fear of debate about hunting, please don't think there is no hunting. Think of a policy to regulate it, so that we can make it sustainable. That is surely the issue, because an illegal crop, an illegal market is unsustainable in the long term, whatever it is. And the market in wildlife meat is unsustainable as currently practiced, and something needs to be done.'
4. Trophy hunting can result in improved conservation outcomes for hunted species
It has been argued that if impoverished communities are able to make an income from legally managed trophy hunting they will see some purpose in the conservation of threatened species. Without this, it is claimed, many species are seen as only an impediment to agriculture or human habitation and so farmers are likely to kill them and illegally sell their by-products.
This point was made by John Hanks in the November 2013 edition of Africa Geographic Magazine, who argued that trophy hunting gave rural communities a reason to conserve game species. Hanks stated, 'More significantly for resident communities, they have an incentive to protect the large mammals that would otherwise be seen as a threat to their livelihoods.'
Similarly, spokesman for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Roland Gramling, has pointed out that,' ... in some circumstances, regulated hunting has to be tolerated, because it reduces the poverty that fuels poaching.'
According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the legalisation of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe's elephants.
Leader-Williams stated, 'Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas.'
Leader-Williams concludes, 'As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe's already large elephant population.'
Melanie Virtue, who manages conservation agreements, including one for the protection of endangered West African elephants, for the UN's Convention on Migratory Species, has stated, 'If the local people see no benefits to having elephants on their land, they will kill them anyway, whether it's legal or not.
There's a reason why there are no wolves and bears left in northern Europe - because the local communities didn't want them there. So you have to provide an incentive if you want to keep them.'
5. Game animals are far more at risk from competition for resources with human beings and from poaching
Africa's increasing human population has come into dramatic conflict with the continent's wildlife. The food sources of this growing human population are put at risk by some of these animals and the result is that the animals are hunted. This means that lions, tigers and elephants may be more likely to be killed by village communities than by trophy hunters.
In a report published in The Wall Street Journal on August 7, 2015, it was noted, 'Africa's human population... is the fastest-growing in the world. In roughly the same period as the lion decline, the number of Africans has nearly doubled, to 1.2 billion people. The population will double again to 2.5 billion by 2050, according to the United Nations. At that point, one out of every four humans will live in Africa.'
Such pressure of human population on limited food resources means that communities are unable to tolerate competition from wildlife. A number of large game animals prey on the farm animals that African communities rely on in order to survive. The August 7, 2015, Wall Street Journal article notes, 'More people has meant more forests being turned into pastures, more locals hunting the lion's prey for their own meals and more herders killing lions rather than risk losing cattle.' It has been reported that in Kenya each lion kills $270 worth of livestock annually. Such losses are catastrophic in a country where per capita income is $1200 a year. Defenders of trophy hunting claim that communities will kill competing game animals irrespective of whether trophy hunting is allowed.
It has also been noted that illegal poaching is a far greater threat to wildlife than trophy hunting.
A spokesman for WWF, Roland Gramling, has pointed out that the 12,000 elephants killed by poachers each year is given negligible media attention, compared to the relatively small numbers taken by licensed trophy hunters who have become the focus of extensive media interest.
In an article published by the University of Wisconsin's Conservation Magazine, in January 2015, Jason Goldman compared the relative impact of poaching and legal, licensed trophy hunting on rhinos. Goldman quotes official figures of 745 rhinos poached annually across Africa. Supporters of trophy hunting argue that its impact is minimal compared to that of poaching. Regarding rhinos, for example, in South Africa and Namibia, where trophy hunting is allowed, each country licences the killing of five black rhinos a year.