Trophy Hunting Research Paper

Trophy hunting is an outdated and ecologically destructive practice. Though often defended on the basis of socioecological value, the negative attributes of trophy hunting far outweigh any perceived gains. The basis of a full and comprehensive ban on trophy hunting can be established on three main criteria; ethics, conservation, and lack of factual evidence in favor of the socioecological merits of trophy hunting. Often, the counterargument of social benefit is overstated and under supported. By contrast, trophy hunting dramatically impacts the survival of many threatened and endangered species. In order to protect these animals, as well as the greater environment, for future generations, trophy hunting must be abolished. Ecological integrity

depends on creating a sustainable community.
Foremost, trophy hunting is a grossly unethical practice. Whereas traditional harvest is managed by state or local forest service entities, trophy hunting is subject to far less scrutiny. The goal of trophy hunting is not to thin populations in order to create sustainable environments. Rather, trophy hunters harvest only the biggest and best animals. This can lead to an evolutionary shift in population dynamics. For example, rhino populations have been observed to have shorter horns and smaller body masses due to the forced natural selection of hunting and its resultant impact on population genetics (Flocken). This indicates that humans are directly influencing delicate and endangered populations.
Moreover, trophy hunting is unlike traditional hunting in that participants hunt solely for sport.

Animals are not harvested out of necessity for food, pelts, or medicine. Trophy hunts capitalize on the exploitation and slaughter of wild animals for consumer means. Hunters are often wealthy foreign tourists who do not understand the ecological ramifications of their actions. Thus, trophy hunting is consumer at its finest, satisfying the entertainment needs of wealthy tourists with little regard for wildlife and environmental integrity. Lin summarizes, “most people who argue in favor of hunting are not arguing in favor of trophy hunting–the practice of killing an animal simply to show off its head and pelt. Trophy hunting is, in fact, abhorred by the majority of the public” (Lin). Banning trophy hunting is not an attack on traditional hunting for meat or population control. Rather, trophy hunting is an unethical practice that is not governed by mainstream conservation principles. Many hunters view trophy hunting as a poor and unfair representation of hunting. The negative stigma attached to this outdated practice can impact the manner in which all hunting is viewed. Thus, banning trophy hunting is a point that both conservationist and traditional hunters can unite

in.
Trophy hunting is not an ecologically sustainable practice.

Conservation must be valued above sport if wildlife populations are to succeed. Historical accounts have demonstrated the devastating impact of trophy hunting on wildlife populations. Elephants, rhinos, and Siberian tigers are just a few examples of species that have nearly been hunted to decimation because of trophy hunting. Compared to managed hunts that target members of the species based on seasonality, sex, and environmental impact of harvest, trophy hunting harms ecological integrity by removing the most fit members of a population. For example, deer hunting in most areas of the United States is regulated such that hunters follow seasonal trends and do not harvest members of the population that would result in overall damage to ecological integrity, such as the young and females depending on the time of the year. Trophy hunters are not regulated. Guides rely on creating an entertaining experience that is worth the money a wealthy tourist might pay. Thus, hunts are driven by tourist value over conservation ethics. Trophy hunters expect to find and shoot an animal on each venture to make the effort worth their financial contribution. This mentality leaves little room for ethical considerations. Flocken explains the dangers of trophy hunting in a recent CNN article: “From a biological perspective, the long-term survival of an imperiled species is extremely complicated; trophy hunting not only flies in the face

of a precautionary approach to wildlife management, but in some cases, it has also been found to undermine it. A case in point: hunters are not like natural predators. They target the largest specimens; those with the biggest tusks, manes, antlers, or horns” (Flocken). As a guiding rule, regardless of one’s personal convictions on whether hunting in practice is right or wrong, hunting should always be managed to ensure the survival of species. In a best-case scenario, harvesting should be done at a rate and control level that thins a population in order to support overall ecological health. When the fittest specimens are removed, this dramatically impacts the viability of a population in a way that conventional hunting does not. Due to the aforementioned tourism pressures associated with trophy hunting, it would be near impossible to reform the practice in a manner that is ecologically sound. Thus, banning trophy hunting is the only viable option when the nature of the practice is rooted in the removal of the best and most naturally fit specimens of a given population.
Lastly, consideration must be given to the perceived merits of trophy hunting. Many proponents of trophy hunting argue that the socioeconomic value of the practice outweighs the ecological devastation. A common argument is the perceived economic value trophy hunting offers local communities. However, this value is overstated and problematic for several reasons. Tallies of economic returns are held by private hunting and safari tourism agencies, with limited outside data or concrete data at all to verify the exact fiscal gains that benefit local communities.
“The amount of overall revenue from hunting big game that goes towards community development is only around three percent. That number might even be lower since many of the countries where game hunting is most widely practiced are plagued by corruption that may well undermine the amount of earnings that reach local communities from collectively-held land.” (Ahmed).
Furthermore, studies indicate that ecotourism is more lucrative than trophy hunting. Tourism is a rapidly growing industry in many regions of the world, particularly Africa where big game hunting is most prevalent. Travelers are drawn by the promise of seeing wildlife, a benefit that is directly threatened by trophy hunters. Tourism adds economic value to local communities in a way that trophy hunting does not. Tourism is a steadier stream of income, it is a growing and sustainable industry with a history of supporting many small communities, and the economic benefits are directly traceable to local businesses, particularly the hospitality industry. Therefore, claims that trophy hunting is a vital economic contributor are inaccurate and vastly overstated. Not only is trophy hunting minimally lucrative, but the removal of wildlife threatens the ecotourism industry which could be far more economically beneficial than big game hunting.
In conclusion, trophy hunting is both unethical and unsustainable. The practice of big game hunting is cruel and barbaric, with no necessity beyond rampant consumerism and the need for sport related entertainment. Removing the most fit members of a wildlife population is poor practice from a conservation standpoint. Furthermore, the socioeconomic gains of trophy hunting are vastly overstated and erroneous. Ultimately, a ban on trophy hunting is the best solution for a sustainable and humane future.