George Monbiot’s defense of trophy hunting makes no sense
Monbiot is a vegan climate activist that dislikes neoliberalism, capitalism, and free market think tanks. Yet, he defends trophy hunting?
I wanted to discuss one other part of Sian Sullivan’s article on trophy hunting in Namibia - George Monbiot.
Sullivan referenced a Channel 4 investigative piece that revealed that Safari Club International was auctioning off polar bear hunts to raise funds to combat the UK’s potential trophy import ban. George Monbiot was featured defending trophy hunting.
As Sullivan noted, Monbiot is a “vocal vegan, critic of inequality, climate change activist.” I’ll add that Monbiot is also a staunch critic of neoliberalism, capitalism, and free market think tanks, particularly Institute of Economic Affairs.
Trophy hunting is inseparable from neoliberalism and capitalism and promoted by various free market think tanks, including Institute of Economic Affairs. Monbiot should be diametrically opposed to practices like trophy hunting.
In fact, he stated used to oppose trophy hunting but changed his opinion thanks to sustainable use activist Amy Dickman.
Is Amy Dickman a trustworthy source for trophy hunting?
Dickman told me that she trusts Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, an economist with free market think tank Property and Environment Research Center (which lists Dickman in their ‘People’ section) and formerly with Institute of Economic Affairs. Dickman was a focal point in a paper about conflicts of interest with the trophy hunting industry and also “has celebrity status amongst most of us in the industry” according to a member of an online hunting forum.
Yes, you read that right. Amy Dickman, the woman who speaks out against celebrities criticizing trophy hunting, is, herself, a celebrity within the trophy hunting industry.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are George Monbiot - you are a vegan climate activist and severely dislike neoliberalism, capitalism, and free market think tanks.
Someone tells you that burning fossil fuels may release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but the harm is outweighed by the profit it generates which incentivizes local communities to protect habitat and other natural resources.
This someone has their own dedicated page on a free market think tank’s website and is trusted colleagues with that think tank’s research fellow. This someone has also taken money from the fossil fuel industry and has celebrity status amongst people in the industry.
Do you change your mind and start defending the fossil fuel industry? Of course not!
Yet, Monbiot did exactly that with the trophy hunting industry.
Monbiot’s defense of trophy hunting makes no sense given his core values. This shows the effectiveness of the trophy hunting industry’s propaganda and highlights a major concern for the biodiversity crisis.
[George, if you’re reading this, feel free to subscribe. I’m sure you’ll enjoy my other work considering your climate activism and dislike of neoliberalism.]
Why is trophy hunting propaganda so effective?
To date, there has not been any research into the effectiveness of the trophy hunting industry’s propaganda. Unlike the fossil fuel industry, the trophy hunting industry is not yet well-known to people who study disinformation and denial.
Without actual research, we’re left to speculate about why many seemingly smart people believe the trophy hunting industry’s rhetoric, namely that trophy hunting is good for wildlife and people.
I think that the people part of that rhetoric is what sways people to the industry’s side. After all, there’s a reason why Safari Club International said they were going to focus on poor people their 1996 Strategic Plan for Africa. The plan stated that the industry needed “to consider hiring a Fifth Avenue Public Relations (PR) firm to give trophy hunting linked to community based conservation and development an image to the world.”
Of poor people, the report noted:
“Sponsor them, rent a booth, take a series of photographs depicting how communities are involved in and receiving benefits from these areas. This will provide these spokesmen an opportunity to represent not only their peoples’ concerns, but to lobby for supporting the concept, “sustainable use of wildlife,” especially low offtake high economic return trophy hunting, for what it is meant to be – a tool for management, economic and rural development in Africa.”
This is effective because, to put it simply, people care more about people than wildlife. Who cares about the obvious negative biological and ecological impacts of artificially selecting against mature/successful/dominant individuals of other species when not doing so will hurt poor people?
But beyond caring more about people than wildlife, believing trophy hunting propaganda likely also has to do with an opposing force – shutting down emotions. The public often hears that trophy hunting is an emotive subject and they want to feel like they are more than emotionally irrational beings.
People want to believe that they can cast aside their emotional distaste of trophy hunting in favor of what ‘the science says’ (regardless of the actual evidence). If you have someone with a PhD telling you that trophy hunting is good, you’re going to side with them – and you’re going to feel like your rational brain won out over your irrational brain.
But, again, we have to speculate because no one is actually researching the trophy hunting industry’s propaganda. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we cannot solve the biodiversity crisis if we don’t understand the work of industries that thrive off killing animals.
“Imagine trying to fix the climate crisis without knowing the fossil fuel industry and its allies are actively fighting solutions. Decades of inaction prove we cannot solve a crisis if we do not understand all the forces at play. Researching how industry has influenced wildlife conservation policies is a critical piece of the puzzle for fixing the biodiversity crisis.”
What a short-sighted selfish and unfeeling person. I could use some more colourful to describe him... but nuff said!