When will sustainable use activists admit that trophy hunting is destructive?
Another paper has come out highlighting the negative impacts of the trophy hunting but is being spun by sustainable use activists in defense of trophy hunting.
A Strampelli et al. paper sounded the alarm about the lack of large carnivores in abandoned hunting blocks in Tanzania’s Ruaha-Rungwa area. The paper’s impact reads: Habitat degradation associated with ongoing hunting area abandonment is shown to be a novel threat to large African carnivore populations.
It appears that hunting block abandonment leads to less law enforcement which leads to more illegal human activity which leads to diminishing large carnivore populations. Or, at least, that’s the story that sustainable use activists are pushing.
The lack of large carnivores in abandoned hunting blocks is a certainly a major concern that deserves attention. But sustainable use activists appear to be using the paper as an opportunity to parrot trophy hunting industry propaganda which deserves attention in its own right.
What do sustainable use activists say about the problem?
There is a thread about this paper on Twitter that reveals quite a bit about sustainable use activists as they tried to grapple with the uncomfortable truth of trophy hunting.
Julien Fattebert raised the question about why trophy hunting blocks were abandoned in the first place. Were blocks abandoned before they were depleted of large carnivores – or were blocks depleted of large carnivores before they were abandoned?
Peter Lindsey responded saying that most hunting blocks don’t generate enough money to be sustainable and need to be subsidized so that they don’t gradually deplete and fall vacant.
Adam Hart then asked if trophy hunters could simply be charged higher fees to generate more revenue for the hunting blocks and wonders if there have been any studies on “what the market would take.”
Amy Dickman said that she believed the hunting blocks were abandoned prior to the depletion of large carnivores since there was higher illegal human activity abandoned hunting blocks. She also blamed abandonment on the decreasing viability of trophy hunting, particularly due to trophy hunting import bans.
The original question surrounding the sequence of events is particularly interesting because if you read the paper, you get the impression that Strampelli et al. (which includes Dickman) believe the trophy hunting blocks were abandoned prior to the decline of large carnivores. Yet the only ‘evidence’ to support this idea is higher illegal human activity in abandoned hunting blocks – there is no evidence presented that the higher illegal human activity caused the depletion of large carnivores.
But Strampelli et al. also state in the paper that they “were unable to determine whether poor management by hunting operators played a role in blocks becoming degraded before they were abandoned.” Thankfully, they at least cited past research that could weigh in on the debate.
What does past research say about the problem?
A Brink et al. paper looked at lion data in Selous Game Reserve, “the most important trophy hunting destination in Tanzania,” and found that the steepest lion declines were associated with the highest level of trophy hunting. Additionally, short term leases for hunting blocks were incentivizing high turnover and unsustainable hunting practices.
A Packer et al. paper found that trophy hunting was the “primary driver of a decline in lion abundance in the country’s trophy hunting areas” and that “regions outside the Selous Game Reserve with the highest initial leopard harvests again showed the steepest declines.” Worse yet, lions were likely disappearing from some of Tanzania’s national parks due to trophy hunting in other areas.
Packer et al. also noted, “In contrast to the conclusions of IUCN (2006) and Bauer et al. (2008), reports, we were unable to detect any consistent impact from habitat loss or human–carnivore conflict in hunting areas, although retaliatory killing was substantial in several of the protected areas.”
Craig Packer had a more reasonable take on the trophy hunting blocks being abandoned in Tanzania.
“It’s very convenient for the hunting industry to blame restrictions that were, in fact, imposed because of the impacts of their past practices rather than to accept that they have long been part of the problem. Not only did they overhunt in much of Tanzania, but they also failed to generate the funding to protect the areas they were claiming to conserve. They were given dominion over the land at cut-rate prices, and they didn’t give back to some of the poorest countries and communities in the world.”
However, he added that there is still the problem of what to do with those abandoned hunting blocks and how to pay for them. This is an unfortunate outlook that eventually leads to more neoliberal policies which gives us more fortress conservation and militarization – plus, as Lindsey noted in his tweet, most trophy hunting areas already require additional subsidies so it’s not like this is a new ‘problem.’
What does the trophy hunting industry actually say about the problem?
The idea that the trophy hunting industry is a victim of strict regulations and import bans is pure propaganda. But if you actually look past the propaganda (something sustainable use activists appear unable or unwilling to do), you will see that the industry has actually admitted that trophy hunting is a major contributor to Tanzania’s wildlife declines.
According to Safari Club International African Chapter’s Strategic Plan for Africa, the industry agreed with Dickman that trophy hunting has been losing viability. However, the trophy hunting industry did not blame import bans.
“The consensus was that, due to the current costs of doing business, especially the large number of government taxes, it is impossible to make money while operating ethically in Tanzania.
One of the biggest problems are smaller indigenous companies who have inside connections to people in power.”
An important note here being that the strategic plan was published in 1996 demonstrating that trophy hunting’s viability in Tanzania has been on the decline for decades before any major country even began considering the idea of an import ban.
Large carnivores, and lions in particular, are important to the trophy hunting industry due to their prestige and profitability. The strategic plan noted, “Everyone interviewed expressed concern that huntable lion are experiencing a major decline in numbers” and that “excessive quotas from subdivisions of hunting blocks” were part of the problem.
Additionally, “the feeling by all people interviewed is that current government quotas are not sustainable in many of the hunting areas.” Concern was also raised for a decision to increase hunting quotas in Tanzania.
“There was no scientific basis for this level of increase in quotas. It appears to have been a(n) economically based decision that may not be sustainable according to the safari industry present at the SCI African Chapter meeting. Everyone agrees that some increase was acceptable but not to the extremes such as noted above.”
The strategic plan added that “this decision is believed to be having a major negative impact on trophy quality, and in combination with other factors (e.g., human encroachment, poaching) potentially on the viability of game populations over much of Tanzania ‘s hunting areas” - viability once again a concern with no mention of trophy import bans.
Yet, the strategic plan also stated that “quotas for trophy hunting have to do with maintaining the economic viability of a population, and have no impact on the biological viability of a wildlife population.”
Practically predicting Hart’s question about how much the market could take in relation to increased trophy hunting fees, the strategic plan stated, “Well before the biological viability of a population is reached as a result of trophy hunting, trophy quality will be down and hunters will stop coming until suitable time has allowed for trophy quality to return. This becomes an economic decision determined by market forces, not a biological decision.”
In other words, trophy hunters will kill everything worth killing and then they’ll leave - which looks to be exactly what happened in Tanzania. The system is working exactly as intended, no need to raise trophy hunting fees. All hail market forces!
[The religious focus on ‘markets’ instead of biology and ecology is quite possibly the biggest failure of the modern conservations. Large carnivores are disappearing because they’re being killed, not because they’re priced wrong.
Its such a simple concept but as Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”]
The strategic plan acknowledged that Tanzania’s wildlife was declining and there was “a developing antihunting bias among grass roots people.”
“The anti-hunting movement in Tanzania is mainly a grass-roots movement. Because people see no benefits from hunting or wildlife, they see hunters as people who are shooting out the game with no benefits to them. The Parliamentarian from Maasailand has openly stated that he will request that all hunting in his jurisdiction be closed. The message is out that ‘trophy hunting is destructive.’”
Trophy hunting being destructive is unfortunately something sustainable use activists cannot, or refuse to, grasp. As well, sustainable use activists’ constant beratement of ‘Western’ people who dislike trophy hunting conveniently ignores the genuine grassroots anti-hunting movements across many African countries.
SCI Africa Chapter’s strategic plan sums up the point that Packer made about the trophy hunting industry perfectly by saying that “in general the grass roots, living among wildlife, receive no direct benefits from hunting unless a particular safari operation uses its own money for development.”
As well, “Meat from trophy hunted game, in theory, should also be provided to rural communities. In reality, most of it is used to feed camp staff, or as lion/leopard bait.”
[Read more about the Strategic Plan for Africa here.]
There is a recent Safari Club International blog post that discusses the ‘adventure’ that trophy hunters had bravely killing a lion using bait in Tanzania’s Rungwa area. The author of the blog post even set the record straight on import bans.
“There is another uncomfortable subject in modern lion hunting: trophy importation. Despite what we hear, few nations have stopped importation of lions. However, some have more stringent requirements (including the EU and USA).”
The opinion Dickman shares that trophy import bans have reduced the viability of trophy hunting is misleading at best and completely false at worst.
The uncomfortable truth
The Twitter thread I referenced showed how sustainable use activists grapple with the destructiveness of trophy hunting. We all know trophy hunting is destructive – the trophy hunting industry even admits it – it’s time for sustainable use activists to stop the social media theater and actually work towards finding solutions instead of defending problems.
I think we should pause before ending and note that the reactions to the Strampelli et al. paper show sustainable use activists, once again, casting blame on poor communities rather than wealthy elites.
If these people are viewed as criminals:
Then these Elmer Fudds should not be viewed as conservationists:
It takes a special effort to concoct so much rubbish. It's far easier to report the truth, maybe not as lucrative.
Hi Jared! It’s good to have to back first and foremost.
Second, this article hits the nail perfectly. I’ve been told by many, including Dr. Pieter Kat, that many of those concessions were hunted out along ago and left due to the lack of viable game to shoot. Zambia also exhibits this problem. I just don’t understand how the TH industry continues to inspire fear and control into the many scientists that should oppose it to make life better for BOTH wildlife and people.