‘Why is trophy hunting OK for rich Scottish landowners but not communities in Africa?’
Last year, during a trip to Botswana, I had my first taste of what it feels like to be on the wrong side of an elephant. “You need to see this,” my guide had told me, as we approached a 15-strong breeding herd. We were almost 100 metres away when the animals lifted their trunks, flared their ears and began charging towards us. Only at the last minute did my guide swerve away. “Now you understand what it’s really like to live alongside wild animals,” he said.
That day, I realised an uncomfortable truth from the privileged comfort of my safari vehicle: as a tourist it’s very easy to ignore what happens behind the scenes.
Controversially, trophy hunting has been justified as one solution for reducing the pressures of human/wildlife conflict in areas of species overpopulation. Personally, I can’t understand how anyone could want to shoot an animal with anything but a camera. But dig deeper and the situation becomes a lot more complex.
‘Totally contrary to British values’
On March 17, MPs are due to vote on the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would ban wildlife hunting trophies from being brought into the UK, following countries like France, Australia and the Netherlands. Joanna Lumley, Judi Dench, Liam Gallagher, Ranulph Fiennes – and most recently Gary Lineker – are amongst the many celebrities who have passionately spoken out in favour of it being passed as part of pressure group The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.
“The killing of animals for entertainment is totally contrary to British values,” says Dench. “There is nothing noble about posing for a grinning selfie next to a defenceless animal. There is nothing honourable about decorating one’s home with the heads of sentient creatures.”
There are compelling arguments for supporting the ban.
“Most hunting operations in Africa employ very few local people,” points out Chris McIntyre, managing director of tour operator Expert Africa. “The very large trophy fees will often end up going in large part to a professional hunter or a hunting company: only in a few cases do we see significant hunting income used for the benefit of whole communities.
“Further, while I believe there are hunting operations in Africa which play by the rules, I am also very aware that the trophy-hunting system, and the large amounts of cash that are often involved, do often seem to be linked to behaviour that many would regard as unethical.”
Safari operator and author Ian Michler deals with the topic in his new book Living In Two Worlds – Addressing Humanity’s Greatest Challenge, co-authored with Ian McCallum.
“Whether viewed from the perspective of intention or consequence, there are profound operational and conservation concerns, along with moral and ethical ones, attached to trophy hunting on this continent,” he writes. “It results in far more harm than its supposed benefits.”
The case for allowing trophy hunting
Representatives of community-run conservation areas in Angola, Botswana, Namibia and Zambia, however, would disagree. In a recent open letter to Andrew Mitchell, UK Minister of State for Development and Africa they outline the potential damages of the bill to conservation including reduced revenue for protecting wildlife areas and an increased risk of human/wildlife conflict.
Conservationist and Oxford University professor Amy Dickman, who works extensively in Africa to protect carnivores and communities, supports their argument. “I think this bill is terrible, for several reasons,” she says. “It is driven by extensive misinformation, from campaign groups which falsely claim that trophy hunting is driving species to extinction. That is not true: trophy hunting can be positive or negative for conservation, but it is not driving any species to extinction. The real threats to wildlife are habitat loss, poaching and conflict with people – all of which, ironically, trophy hunting can help reduce, as it provides revenue to maintain habitat and fund anti-poaching.”
Sue Snyman, Director of Research for the School of Wildlife Conservation at the African Leadership University, agrees, citing the example of Tanzania, where 60 per cent of the Tanzania Wildlife Authority’s revenue for operations including anti-poaching comes from hunting.
“I am a vegetarian and would never hunt, but as an economist, I see the role that hunting plays in terms of conservation and development in Africa. Until alternative options can be found in many areas, it should not be compromised, as it will lead to an increase in illegal or unsustainable use if there are no tangible benefits from the wildlife in these areas. This was the case in Kenya, which since the hunting ban and over the last 30 years has lost more than 60 per cent of its wildlife, as there is no incentive for local communities to conserve wildlife.”
Hypocrisy and toxic Twitter
Some African groups have gone so far as to describe the bill as a form of neo-colonialism, proposed without consulting any of the communities who will be directly impacted. Given hunting is still legitimised as a ‘sport’ in the UK, Dickman believes the ban would be “deeply hypocritical”.
“So the UK is saying that trophy hunting is OK for rich Scottish landowners, for example, but not OK for rural communities in Africa and elsewhere?” she asks. “The UK has a terrible conservation record. Rather than focusing on hunting and conservation abroad, it would do far better to use this Parliamentary time and energy to address real conservation threats and ensure that is done in a way which helps empower local stakeholders, rather than undermining their rights.”
On both sides of the debate, emotions run high – which is also part of the problem. Next week, a new book, Saving Sally: Trophy Hunters, Secrets & Lies by Eduardo Goncalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, will name and shame a British businessman as the world’s number two trophy hunter and social media is already packed with posts disgracing people who kill animals for fun.
But toxic Twitter posts could be doing more harm than good.
“It shuts down considered debate and makes people scared to speak up,” warns Dickman, who is one of many conservationists working on alternative models – although she admits nothing viable yet exists. “There’s a perception that this is about being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ hunting, with no middle ground, rather than recognising that most people are pro-wildlife and would like to discuss and understand the nuances and complexities more.”
The fact that a number of tour operators I approached about the topic declined to give comment speaks volumes. This is a prickly subject few want to tackle.
“The trophy hunting debate is complex,” admits Chris McIntyre, who believes long-term the bill signposts the correct direction for the safari industry but recognises the need to investigate other solutions for communities with limited choices. “While the case for change is strong, those changes need to come with sensitivity to, and support for, Africa’s communities who will be impacted,” he says.
Like so much in the field of conservation, there is no easy answer. But more than ever, perhaps now is the time to put emotions aside, open the forum for fair debate and finally address the real elephant in the room.
