Amy Dickman is a Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Oxford, the Joint CEO of Lion Landscapes, and a member of DEFRA’s Darwin Expert Committee.
Conservation and animal welfare are important concerns for the British people, myself included, and these concerns should be reflected in legislation. Counter-intuitively, that is precisely why the House of Lords should properly scrutinise, question and amend the Trophy Hunting (Import Prohibition) Bill this Friday. Otherwise, it risks real damage to conservation, animal welfare and livelihoods in Africa and beyond.
Trophy hunting is highly contentious, and a ban on trophy hunting imports was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. This is being delivered through a Private Member’s Bill, sponsored in the Commons by Henry Smith and in the Lords by Baroness Fookes.
The Bill’s aim is clearly (and admirably) conservation. If this was a moral opposition to trophy hunting, then the Bill would focus on stopping the UK’s extensive domestic trophy hunting, mainly of red deer. Many thousands of animals are trophy hunted here annually. However, in a move seen as hypocritical by many, the UK seems intent on continuing trophy hunting at home, while undermining it elsewhere.
If the Bill is not about morality, it must be about conservation. Indeed, the Government has proudly promised the ban will ‘protect nearly 7000 species’. The narrative is simple: rich, white people are paying to shoot threatened species like lions, rhinos and elephants, pushing them closer to extinction.
Unfortunately, like many simplistic narratives, that is wrong. According to recent analysis led by Oxford University scientists, trophy hunting is not threatening a single species with extinction. Rather than taking a nuanced and proportionate approach, the Bill would apply unnecessary legislation to thousands of species.
Six thousand two hundrd and thirty three species would be covered under the Bill – over 2000 of them are coral. It would cover 585 lizards, 300 hummingbirds, 299 frogs, 209 turtles, 96 molluscs, 69 bats, 58 insects, 56 salamanders and newts, 36 tarantulas and even six sea cucumbers. Not one of these species is trophy hunted, so it is extremely hard to see how it would meaningfully ‘protect’ them as promised to the UK public. That is the case for the vast majority of species covered.
Only 53 of species covered by the ban (under 1%) have been imported to the UK as hunting trophies since 2000, and the Oxford analysis found no species where such hunting threatened them with extinction.
Counter-intuitively, a ban is likely to harm the conservation of these species and many others. The main threats to biodiversity are the loss of natural habitat and illegal killing. Just as with photo-tourism, revenue from trophy hunting helps maintain wild areas and fund anti-poaching, reducing those far greater threats. Removing this revenue, with no better options ready, means huge wild areas (trophy hunting conserves more wildlife habitat in Africa than National Parks) will be converted to uses such as farming.
Many more wild animals will die, in crueller ways such as snaring and poisoning, than are killed under trophy hunting. Photo-tourism is simply not a viable alternative in most hunting areas.
Distasteful as it may be, trophy hunting has proven conservation benefits for multiple species, including endangered ones such as black rhino. That’s why the IUCN recommends policy-makers take certain steps before imposing restrictions on trophy hunting, including properly consulting affected local people, and making sure alternative conservation financing is in place. The UK has not taken any such steps.
The current Bill would undermine the rights, livelihoods and revenue of indigenous people and local communities. Representatives of millions of Africans have complained about the ban, which has been described as neocolonial and possibly racist.
The UK Government has suggested lost revenue could be replaced with grants or aid. African Governments have hit back, saying that ‘promoting a beggar-like dependency on aid is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem’. Alarmingly, requests from multiple African High Commissioners, and leading scientists, for meetings with Baroness Fookes have so far been refused.
None of this means trophy hunting is ideal. Indeed, for nine of the 6233 species covered by the ban, poorly regulated trophy hunting is a possible or likely threat to some populations. That’s why over 200 conservation experts have advocated an amended ‘smart’ ban, where imports are only allowed if they demonstrate clear benefits to conservation and communities. There is no reason not to allow this: if no such cases exist, it would be the same as a blanket ban. But if such benefits do exist, they should not be undermined, if our goal is effective conservation.
Polling shows fewer than half Britons want a ban if it harms conservation or livelihoods. A ‘conservation amendment’ is imperative to enable this Bill to deliver on its promise to the public, and help rather than harm conservation.
So far, this Bill has received very little scrutiny, and has been marred by misinformation. Henry Smith may believe he’s on a crusade to protect the animals, but the truth is that the Bill as it stands poses a real risk to conservation, animal welfare and local livelihoods. The Lords can and must do better, and prioritise evidence-based conservation over well-meaning misinformation.
Amy Dickman is a Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Oxford, the Joint CEO of Lion Landscapes, and a member of DEFRA’s Darwin Expert Committee.
Conservation and animal welfare are important concerns for the British people, myself included, and these concerns should be reflected in legislation. Counter-intuitively, that is precisely why the House of Lords should properly scrutinise, question and amend the Trophy Hunting (Import Prohibition) Bill this Friday. Otherwise, it risks real damage to conservation, animal welfare and livelihoods in Africa and beyond.
Trophy hunting is highly contentious, and a ban on trophy hunting imports was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. This is being delivered through a Private Member’s Bill, sponsored in the Commons by Henry Smith and in the Lords by Baroness Fookes.
The Bill’s aim is clearly (and admirably) conservation. If this was a moral opposition to trophy hunting, then the Bill would focus on stopping the UK’s extensive domestic trophy hunting, mainly of red deer. Many thousands of animals are trophy hunted here annually. However, in a move seen as hypocritical by many, the UK seems intent on continuing trophy hunting at home, while undermining it elsewhere.
If the Bill is not about morality, it must be about conservation. Indeed, the Government has proudly promised the ban will ‘protect nearly 7000 species’. The narrative is simple: rich, white people are paying to shoot threatened species like lions, rhinos and elephants, pushing them closer to extinction.
Unfortunately, like many simplistic narratives, that is wrong. According to recent analysis led by Oxford University scientists, trophy hunting is not threatening a single species with extinction. Rather than taking a nuanced and proportionate approach, the Bill would apply unnecessary legislation to thousands of species.
Six thousand two hundrd and thirty three species would be covered under the Bill – over 2000 of them are coral. It would cover 585 lizards, 300 hummingbirds, 299 frogs, 209 turtles, 96 molluscs, 69 bats, 58 insects, 56 salamanders and newts, 36 tarantulas and even six sea cucumbers. Not one of these species is trophy hunted, so it is extremely hard to see how it would meaningfully ‘protect’ them as promised to the UK public. That is the case for the vast majority of species covered.
Only 53 of species covered by the ban (under 1%) have been imported to the UK as hunting trophies since 2000, and the Oxford analysis found no species where such hunting threatened them with extinction.
Counter-intuitively, a ban is likely to harm the conservation of these species and many others. The main threats to biodiversity are the loss of natural habitat and illegal killing. Just as with photo-tourism, revenue from trophy hunting helps maintain wild areas and fund anti-poaching, reducing those far greater threats. Removing this revenue, with no better options ready, means huge wild areas (trophy hunting conserves more wildlife habitat in Africa than National Parks) will be converted to uses such as farming.
Many more wild animals will die, in crueller ways such as snaring and poisoning, than are killed under trophy hunting. Photo-tourism is simply not a viable alternative in most hunting areas.
Distasteful as it may be, trophy hunting has proven conservation benefits for multiple species, including endangered ones such as black rhino. That’s why the IUCN recommends policy-makers take certain steps before imposing restrictions on trophy hunting, including properly consulting affected local people, and making sure alternative conservation financing is in place. The UK has not taken any such steps.
The current Bill would undermine the rights, livelihoods and revenue of indigenous people and local communities. Representatives of millions of Africans have complained about the ban, which has been described as neocolonial and possibly racist.
The UK Government has suggested lost revenue could be replaced with grants or aid. African Governments have hit back, saying that ‘promoting a beggar-like dependency on aid is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem’. Alarmingly, requests from multiple African High Commissioners, and leading scientists, for meetings with Baroness Fookes have so far been refused.
None of this means trophy hunting is ideal. Indeed, for nine of the 6233 species covered by the ban, poorly regulated trophy hunting is a possible or likely threat to some populations. That’s why over 200 conservation experts have advocated an amended ‘smart’ ban, where imports are only allowed if they demonstrate clear benefits to conservation and communities. There is no reason not to allow this: if no such cases exist, it would be the same as a blanket ban. But if such benefits do exist, they should not be undermined, if our goal is effective conservation.
Polling shows fewer than half Britons want a ban if it harms conservation or livelihoods. A ‘conservation amendment’ is imperative to enable this Bill to deliver on its promise to the public, and help rather than harm conservation.
So far, this Bill has received very little scrutiny, and has been marred by misinformation. Henry Smith may believe he’s on a crusade to protect the animals, but the truth is that the Bill as it stands poses a real risk to conservation, animal welfare and local livelihoods. The Lords can and must do better, and prioritise evidence-based conservation over well-meaning misinformation.