European governments are contemplating hunting trophy import bans that would devastate game ranching and conservation in Africa.
Egged on by extremist animal rights organisations like the Humane Society International, Pro Wildlife, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Born Free Foundation, and Four Paws International, EU governments as well as the UK are considering the implementation of extensive bans on the importation of hunting trophies.
The UK’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill prohibits the import of trophies from any of the 4 000-odd animals protected by the CITES Appendices, even if they were obtained in a perfectly legal and legitimate fashion, and exported in full compliance with international treaty requirements.
The Bill has already been passed by Parliament and is in an advanced stage in the House of Lords. Should that happen, it is unlikely to be sunk by King Charles III, who has always been a patsy for extreme environmental interests.
In Europe, a persistent campaign led by the Humane Society has led some countries, like Belgium and Italy, to adopt bans on the import of hunting trophies. The campaign is targeting other European countries, as well as increasing pressure on the EU itself to act on a long-standing declaration by the European Parliament against the import of hunting trophies.
Doing so would be catastrophic for game ranches and conservation in Africa.
It is also the height of hypocrisy, given that both Europe and the UK permit legal trophy hunting within their own borders, and permit the export of trophies, including of their own highly protected species such as brown bears and grey wolves.
Animal rights
There is a widespread belief that these lobby groups are merely interested in animal welfare, which means preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals. If that were so, what reasonable person could object to their campaigns?
They will point to the fact that a majority, and in some countries a large majority, of the general public disapprove of trophy hunting.
Well, so do I. I would hate to hunt down and shoot an animal. I have never been on a hunt, and please don’t invite me to one.
But the majority, and my own emotions, are not always right.
We need to distinguish between animal rights and animal welfare. And lest I be accused of defining terms to suit my own polemic, I’ll distinguish between them in the words of PETA: ‘Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as “humane” guidelines are followed.’
Animal rights doctrine, therefore, flatly opposes the sustainable use of animals, which is a principle that has repeatedly been enshrined in global conservation and biodiversity treaties for almost half a century.
Emotive arguments
This is the perspective from which to view the animal rights lobby’s opposition to hunting. They will produce emotive and superficially appealing arguments, such as that saving a species is logically incompatible with the death of any member of that species. (The Humane Society homepage leads with the injunction to ‘Protect All Animals’.)
They oppose, as a matter of principle, any active wildlife population management that incorporates culling or hunting, and they oppose hunting whether or not the hunt is for trophies, commercial meat, or community sustenance.
These groups are also thoroughly anti-capitalist, so they denounce the profit motive as something ignoble and dishonourable in the context of wildlife conservation.
They have no solution to problems of ecosystem harm because of overpopulation by a particular species. They believe even the complete destruction of an ecosystem by an overpopulated species, with all the extinctions of other species that this might entail, are just part of the process of nature – ignoring entirely that humans created the problem by restricting wildlife habitat and fencing off national parks in the first place.
IUCN recommendations
There are local and international conservation groups that are far more sensible than the extremist animal rights groups. They are concerned with animal welfare, effective conservation, practical co-existence between people and wildlife, and the beneficial, sustainable use of natural resources.
They include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which maintains the Red List of Threatened Species, and the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), based in South Africa.
The EU’s anti-trophy declaration claims, without offering any supporting evidence: ‘Trophy hunting contributes to the loss of iconic species, and claims that proceeds from trophy hunting benefit conservation and local communities have been debunked by scientists.’
This is patent nonsense, and the IUCN almost immediately published a briefing paper that rejected these claims. While it acknowledges ‘examples of weak governance, corruption, lack of transparency, excessive quotas, illegal hunting, poor monitoring and other problems in a number of countries,’ and says these poor practices require urgent action and reform, it adds: ‘However, legal, well regulated trophy hunting programmes can – and do – play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities living with wildlife.’
Its recommendations are worth quoting in full:
To avoid significant negative impacts on species populations, habitat conservation, poaching levels, and the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, IUCN calls on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to ensure that any decisions that could restrict or end trophy hunting programmes:
i. are based on careful and sound analysis and understanding of the particular role that trophy hunting programmes are playing in relation to conservation efforts at all levels in source countries, including their contribution to livelihoods in specific affected communities;
ii. are based on meaningful and equitable consultation with affected range state governments and indigenous peoples and local communities and do not undermine local approaches to conservation;
iii. are taken only after exploration of other options to engage with relevant countries to change poor practice and promote improved standards of governance and management of hunting;
iv. are taken only after identification and implementation of feasible, fully funded and sustainable alternatives to hunting that respect indigenous and local community rights and livelihoods and deliver equal or greater incentives for conservation over the long term.
Firm words
These are firm words and set a very high bar for governments considering banning the importation of hunting trophies. The IUCN is well aware that such a ban would compromise a substantial part of the revenue of African game ranches and conservation projects.
Experts like Amy Dickman of Oxford University, agree: ‘As a professor of wildlife conservation with over 25 years’ field experience,’ she writes, citing her sources, ‘I strongly believe that trophy hunting import bans are driven more by misinformation than the weight of scientific evidence, and risk increasing threats to wildlife and undermining local rights and livelihoods.’
Some years ago, the Endangered Wildlife Trust conducted a survey of South African game ranches to assess their social and conservation value and their potential to support the green economy in South Africa.
They found that wildlife ranches covered a land area approximately three times larger than South Africa’s formally protected reserves, with a commensurate ratio for game numbers. They acknowledged that private, for-profit game ranches have been instrumental in bringing several iconic species back from near-extinction.
While these ranches are not without their conservation issues, the authors concluded that they have proven to be strongholds for many indigenous species, including threatened species.
Of the revenue-generating activities these ranches rely upon, trophy hunting was the most profitable per hectare, closely followed by live sales. Hunting for biltong or game meat were far behind these two.
Ecotourism was not assessed because it is only feasible on a very limited number of ranches in well-travelled and scenic parts of the country.
Revenue sources
The EWT report did assess overall revenue sources for game ranches, however. Ecotourism, which is the go-to proposal of the animal rights brigade, contributes only 5% to the wildlife ranching industry’s revenue.
Meat and biltong production accounts for 7%; live sales for 16%; foreign hunters for 18%; and 54% of the revenue of wildlife ranches is accounted for by local hunters. Overall, hunting makes up 72% of the industry’s revenue.
Some major African conservation projects, such as the Bubye Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe, are funded entirely from hunting revenue, with meat going to local communities.
Threatening to cut off a large part of the revenue produced by foreign hunters, as the EU and UK are doing, will be a critical blow for many game farms (which, remember, protect three times as much land under game, and three times as many animals, as formal reserves do).
The activists will tell you that local communities don’t benefit from trophy hunting, but if an 18% revenue cut translates to 18% job losses, almost 12 000 jobs would be lost. Countless more would be lost if their campaigns to have trophy hunting banned in African countries also succeeds.
Many game farms that today, in however modest a way, protect animal species and the ecosystems in which they thrive, will not be able to continue on a loss-making basis.
The wealthy animal rightists of Europe might sneer at profit, but if land is unprofitable, it will be turned over to uses that are profitable, like livestock or crop farming. This will cause severe ecological degradation.
Pushback
There has been pushback from African countries, aghast at the patronising and high-handed way in which Europeans think they can dictate to Africa how to manage its wildlife.
Botswana’s ministry of environment and tourism last month issued a strongly worded statement, saying that to force countries like Botswana to manage their wildlife with reduced funding will hurt their conservation projects, biodiversity enhancement initiatives, and habitat protection in the region. It will, they said, increase the risk of poaching and human-wildlife conflict, and negatively affect the largest herd of elephants that Botswana supports.
‘The false narrative that sustainable and regulated hunting poses a threat to species has no scientific basis and misleads the world at large,’ it says, correctly.
The Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) produced a report on the UK’s anti-trophy bill, in which it argues that it would harm conservation, human rights, and livelihoods.
It points out that trophy hunting is not a key threat to any species, according to the IUCN, and that for multiple species, even threatened ones, trophy hunting has proven conservation benefits by reducing far greater threats such as habitat loss and poaching.
SUCo-SA also notes that for most game ranches or conservation projects funded by hunting, there are no practical substitutes – no ‘feasible, fully funded and sustainable alternatives to hunting that respect indigenous and local community rights and livelihoods and deliver equal or greater incentives for conservation over the long term’, as the IUCN put it.
Last year, an open letter signed by more than 100 scientists, conservationists, and African community leaders said the UK’s ban is poorly conceived and threatens to reverse conservation gains and undermine the livelihoods of rural communities across sub-Saharan African, according to The Guardian.
Lying activists
When the German member of the European Parliament for the Greens, Manuela Ripa, (as quoted by the Humane Society) says: ‘Instead of having tightly regulated trophy hunting, I pledge for tightly regulated photo hunting, which would have a bigger benefit for species, support ecosystems and the communities involved,’ she is lying.
She cannot promise the revenue or profitability of photo-tourism on game ranches and private reserves that compensate for the loss of trophy hunting. All reserves, conservancies, and ranches that can make revenue from eco-tourism already do so. The majority, however, are off the beaten tourist track or located outside of the most scenic areas, and cannot attract much tourism, if any at all.
Even if Ripa could conjure up the enormous numbers of tourists that would be required to make up for hunters who spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of euros for a trophy, the previously wild areas would become over-crowded and trampled underfoot.
When Mark Jones, head of policy for the Born Free Foundation, (also quoted by the Humane Society) says: ‘We also challenge the claims made by proponents of trophy hunting that it delivers significant conservation and community benefits, or that it positively contributes to the sustainable use of wildlife. Studies have consistently shown that trophy hunting does not provide a significant source of income to rural people, and certainly pales in comparison to other wildlife-related activities such as ecotourism,’ he is lying.
He flatly contradicts the most authoritative organisation on the subject, the IUCN, and contradicts the evidence produced by the EWT, which actually went to the effort to survey game ranches to discover the facts.
Don’t believe the animal rights activists. They sound convincing, but they are dishonest, conniving extremists. They contradict historical experience, scientific research and proven conservation principles. Then they claim to know better than Africa’s conservationists, who are actually responsible for managing Africa’s game.
Their campaigns are an insulting, and frankly racist, form of eco-colonialism.
A proposal
I dislike trophy hunting. I couldn’t do it. I fully understand the emotive appeal of the anti-hunting lobby.
But they’re wrong. Unlike the majority of the public in Europe, expert conservationists in Africa must take into account not emotions, but hard facts. And the reality is that trophy hunting plays a crucial role in keeping land under game instead of under livestock or crops.
I have a proposal for the Human Society and their ilk, however. If they feel so strongly about conserving individual members of iconic species, they are entirely free to outbid international trophy hunters in order to preserve the animals.
That would satisfy the IUCN’s search for ‘feasible, fully funded and sustainable alternatives to hunting that respect indigenous and local community rights and livelihoods and deliver equal or greater incentives for conservation over the long term’.
If they don’t want those animals to die, then they should buy the right to keep them alive. Or do they denounce the profitability of hunting while themselves being too attached to the filthy lucre they raise through their emotive and dishonest appeals to an ignorant public?
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend
Image: Four Europeans with a brown bear, in a promotional photograph for a European operator of trophy hunting tours in Europe. The same Europe that wants to ban trophy imports from Africa.