data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e7187/e7187d45f07e343daa0e46b666d3a692ecc535b5" alt="hunting"
Hunting remains one of the most contentious topics in conservation. Simon Espley shares how he unpacks its complexities – exploring the moral dilemmas, scientific perspectives, and the nuanced benefits and challenges of hunting practices.
“Do you have a personal standpoint about hunting?” is a question I am often asked. Yes, I do.
First, though, know that hunting is a layered and complex topic, and the debates that rage on social media are usually tainted by ideological or vested interest viewpoints for or against. Most ignore the complexities and detail; instead, they draw straight, rigid lines to fit their beliefs and needs.
One layer of complication is that killing animals for fun and ego seems just plain wrong (a personal bias). Yet, sometimes, there are proven benefits for biodiversity and local people. That presents a dilemma – where personal feelings clash with biological reality. Also, hunting in fenced farms and reserves has different implications to hunting free-ranging wildlife. Then, there is the crucial distinction between trophy hunting versus culling and hunting for food. And yet social media discussions seldom differentiate.
Not to be overlooked is the government’s role in creating the hunting industry’s environment – from short land-concession periods (discouraging investment and promoting short-term behaviour) to corruption, lack of accountability and transparency, poor governance and lack of regulatory implementation. We also have to factor in the rights of local people to determine policies concerning sustainable utilisation and to be involved in the ongoing decision-making processes related to hunting quotas of species and genetic traits.
What scientists say about their research is especially important – regardless of what you or I feel about their message. And yet, even with guidance from researchers, finding scientific reports proving or disproving the claimed benefits of hunting can be difficult and time-consuming.
Unfortunately, conducting helpful discussions with hunting industry members has usually proved impossible for us. They operate under a veil of secrecy and usually ignore our requests for information or even attack us for asking probing questions. That said, we work behind the scenes with some trophy hunters who provide information on request. You know who you are – thank you. Again, though, when we request information from hunting industry members about a specific animal hunted and the compensation that went to local communities, that cooperation is usually replaced by stony silence, at best.
My method to determine hunting merits:
While I cannot fathom why some people like to kill animals and, in some cases, collect trophies and make-believe that this is a heroic endeavour, I do recognise that sometimes there are benefits from hunting to biodiversity and local people. So, I have developed my system for determining whether a specific hunting scenario or case contributes to those benefits. I have four conditions that guide me in this process (all of which have to be met):
- The hunt must be conducted legally, ethically, and humanely. The industry has norms and standards in these areas, and all parties involved need to do more to adhere to these. Stakeholders need to hold each other accountable for transgressions.
- The hunting of free-roaming wildlife has to be proven sustainable for the species and genetic traits extracted as a result of the hunt. The onus is on any extraction industry to prove their offtakes are sustainable. This requires evidence from relevant, detailed, science-based population studies going back enough years to provide a usable data set. My rule of thumb is that if an activity further reduces the population of a free-roaming species or genetic trait already in decline, then that activity is, by definition, not sustainable.
- Hunting free-roaming wildlife must generate significant benefits for local people based on verifiable evidence. The specifics will vary based on the circumstances, but the obligations of fair compensation for the loss of that animal, provision of secure long-term employment and skills upliftment remain a firm requirement in my books.
- Total transparency about the above three points. Without transparency, you encourage speculation, mistrust and misinformation.
Examples of how I apply my four conditions:
- Trophy hunting of free-roaming large-tusked elephants gets a solid NO from me.
- The trophy hunting industry has not produced verified research proving their large-tusked elephant offtake is sustainable.
- Last year, six tuskers that we know of were trophy hunted in Tanzania alone. All six roamed the northern Tanzania and southern Kenya region. Five were killed in the Enduimet area and one in the Maswa area. This is clearly not sustainable when you consider that an estimated 86+ tuskers are left in Africa.
- In the above cases, at least one of the six tuskers killed (celebrated tourism icon Gilgil) was 35 years old – not yet into his prime breeding years (40-55 years) – making nonsense of claims that only bulls past their breeding years are killed.
- Most of the carcasses were burnt after these hunts, and requests for information about the elephants, how they were tracked and hunted and about local community benefits were ignored.
- Trophy hunting of free-roaming male lions also gets a solid NO from me because the trophy hunting industry has not produced verified research proving their lion offtake is sustainable, while wild lion populations plummet. Also, instances of the industry and relevant authorities refusing to explain evidence pointing to irregularities are too numerous.
An associated topic
Should we boycott the tourism industry in countries/parks where hunting is practised? NO – because that will damage the best alternative to hunting – and inevitably strengthen the hunting industry. I understand the impulse, but the logic and likely impact make no sense if you seek a sustainable future for our wild places. The hunting industry is deeply embedded in many African countries; the only way to end its reign is for the tourism industry to outcompete it.
My approach to hunting is based on my belief in science and open debate based on facts, and I continually evolve my considered opinion as research reveals new evidence.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/101c2/101c2188d5efd03779c864a3130edea184df5732" alt=""
To comment on this story: Login (or sign up) to our app here - it's a troll-free safe place .