Experts have outlined “compelling evidence” that suggests banning trophy hunting can negatively affect conservation – arguing that unregulated killings are far more prevalent in non-hunting zones.
More than 130 international scientists – including two from the University of Stirling – say that certain species, such as lions, do not fare well in areas where bans are enforced.
In a letter published in the journal Science, they say that, in African countries that do allow trophy hunting, “more land has been conserved than under National Parks;” and that regulated hunting has boosted wildlife populations globally, including those of rhinos, markhor, argali, bighorn sheep, and many African ungulates.
The authors acknowledge that, if poorly managed, trophy hunting can cause local population declines and admit that there is “considerable room for improvement.” However, they add: “Unless better land-use alternatives exist, hunting reforms – which have proved effective – should be prioritized over bans.”
Professor Nils Bunnefeld and Dr. Jeremy Cusack, both of Stirling’s Faculty of Natural Sciences, are signatories on the letter. Stirling has been involved in interdisciplinary research related to trophy hunting for more than 10 years, with a focus on the complex link between social, economic, and ecological dynamics and drivers when aiming to achieve sustainable trophy hunting.
Professor Bunnefeld said: “In order to make decisions on trophy hunting, we need to have a holistic view and assess the evidence from a variety of angles including social, economic and ecosystem perspective. Trophy hunting, when well managed, can have positive effects on both wildlife populations and people’s livelihoods.”
Dr. Cusack added: “Robust science underpinning the management of trophy hunting is absolutely crucial. The tools used to support decision-making are constantly improving as we increase our understanding of wildlife responses, human behavior and governance. Trophy hunting is an emotional issue, but it is only through well-informed and unbiased decision-making that we can ensure wildlife populations and humans will coexist in the long-term.”
There are high-profile campaigns to ban trophy hunting, with several governments having already legislated again it. Calls for such bans typically cite conservation concerns, however, the authors of the letter – led by the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford – highlight evidence challenging this assumption.
They also argue that ending trophy hunting risks land conversion and biodiversity loss and that it can provide income for marginalized and impoverished rural communities.
The letter concludes: “Some people find trophy hunting repugnant (including many of us), but conservation policy that is not based on science threatens habitat and biodiversity and risks disempowering and impoverishing rural communities.”
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
4 Comments
I can’t believe that the media still allows the trophy hunting lobby to make unsubstantiated claims on the contrived benefits of trophy hunting despite the independent peer reviewed science and studies that refute their claims . Proponents of Creationism and flat earthers make more sense than the arguments put fourth by the trophy hunting lobby . Visit out http://www.BanTrophyHuntingLtd.com for real and comprehensive information on the trophy hunting industry .
There is ample evidence that trophy hunting supports conservation, as outlined in this article and numerous other studies. It is actually quite simple and logical, but you are too blinded by your feelings to accept it.
“I can’t believe the media still allows…”, and, “Proponents of Creationism…”
Do you ever listen to the vapid twittery that you spew?
Or be a grown-up and admit you haven’t yet matured and understand nearly as much as you think you do. This is old news…. No one…NO ONE! cares or does more for conservation than hunters. Believe it or not it’s a fact of life. I visited your website full of cast useless lies and misrepresentation, good luck with that. But for goodness sake, grow up.