Trophy Hunting

However, lion conservation only is successful when it provides incentives for locals. At this point in time locals are only concerned with protecting their crops, they believe there is little benefit to protecting the lions. In fact, John Adams, author of the article tilted Killing in the Name of Conservation – Can Trophy Hunting Help Save Africa’s Wild? Sheds information on conservation. He informs his readers that, “Many conservancies allow trophy hunting because it is far easier to get a hunting concession running than to build the lodges and other infrastructure needed for photo safaris” (Adams). Supporters of Trophy hunting will suggest that the revenue from the practice helps the local communities. Jeff Flocken of National Geographic

insists that “There is no proof of this revenue [from trophy hunting] goes to local people in otherwise poor communities” (Flocken). Flocken support his theories by using information from actual conservation groups. Flocken states, “Even pro-hunting organizations like the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation have reported that only 3 percent of revenue from trophy hunting ever makes it to the communities affected by hunting. The rest goes to national governments or foreign-based outfitters” (Flocken).

This would mean that even if trophy hunting did help local economies as supporters of trophy hunting suggest it does not do so in a proportionate way. In agreement with Flocken is Dr. Peter Katt, who has studied trophy hunting in Africa. Kat proclaims that the revenue generated from hunting actual pales in comparison to the amount of revenue made from tourist who seek to simply see the wildlife. This is contrary to many supporters’ claims of trophy hunting who believe the “$200 million” trophy industry is actually economically beneficially to countries. Kat cites a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)study of African countries and trophy hunting. According to the study, “On average in the 11 countries [that allow trophy hunting], 14.9% of the land area has been set aside for hunting, and the average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate poverty and hunger”

(Kat). Moreover, the IUCN report also notes that, “Photographic tourism generates 39 times the permanent employment that trophy hunting does and protected lands generate on average two times the tourist revenue per acre as do hunting reserves.” (Adams). Indeed, Jerod Cody suggested something similar in his October 22 discussion post, where he stressed that, “Tourism can provide a better living to [local communities] more than trophy hunting” (Cody). Cody also recommended that lions help regulate the number of dominant herbivores. Without lions other species will compete against each other leading to further extinction and a reduction in biodiversity” (Cody). Therefore, it would appear that realistically general tourism more so then trophy hunting helps to support economies.
Nevertheless, supporters of trophy hunting will still claim that it supports conservatist endeavors and helps to protect African locals.

This claim is also likely overly stated. David Youldon, leader of a conservative group lectures to those whom will listen that, “no existing lion population needs culling. The only potential benefit from hunting could come as revenue for land preservation and local communities—but this isn’t happening” (Bland). The general act of hunting does indeed pursue conservation goals, but the lack of regulation involved, does not benefit the hunted species nor the local African communities. There are better alternatives to hunting for conservatist measures. For example, Craig Packer, a leading researcher on lions suggests in John Adam’s article that, “Fenced reserves are cheaper and more effective at conserving lions;” (Adams). Adams has also commented on some of Packers findings and informs his readers that, “Packer and his colleagues found [in a study] that the intensity of trophy hunting was the factor most responsible for lion declines (Adams). Still, supporters of trophy hunting may argue that hunting large animals, especially lions, protects local communities from terror. This too is an exaggerated point of view. In fact, Nzou, a native of Zimbabwe himself concedes that, “The killing of [a lion doesn’t'] garner much sympathy from urban Zimbabweans. Few have ever seen a lion” (Nzou). Despite the media seeming to emphasize that Africa is

entirely rural. Nearly seven million people of Zimbabwe live in urban areas, and have little to fear from lions. Creating a large fence around wildlife habitats as suggested by Packer would also curb the fear for many rural African communities as well. Truly, supporters of trophy hunting have not analyzed the facts before them. If lions and other large animals continue to be hunted for trophies African communities will suffer economically, trophy hunted species numbers will decline even further, and any type of conservatist efforts will be nullified. Trophy hunting of a decreasing number of animal species does not conserve, it further depletes. Common sense indicates that subtracting from a negative number only increases that negative number.
In all, a number of governments in Africa and Europe are slowly starting to recognize the implications of trophy hunting on species that are at risk for extinction. Some governments have started to restrict the type of carcasses that can be imported and exported. Although this is a good start, more must be done to seriously have a positive impact. Supporters of trophy hunting will continue to stress that the activity is comically beneficial and promotes conservative efforts. Those who oppose it may argue that the activity is immoral. Yet, the attention must turn towards the number of lions that are drastically declining and ways to reverse this decline, while supporting conservatist efforts and finding a beneficial way to support the local communities that are in dire need of assistance. In order to accomplish this, gradual steps must be made towards the ultimate goal by of eliminating trophy hunting as a sport and more towards using hunting as a purely conservative mean. By enforcing new regulations and restriction on trophy hunting in general, increasing the fees of trophy hunting, harsher age limit restrictions, better monitoring of trophy animals, and stricter limits on the number of at risk animals hunted such a goal can be accomplished.