The illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals – or poaching – has been a scourge of the African continent since independence has returned authority over their own affairs to African countries.
Indeed, anger over social media posts of hunters posing over the carcasses of endangered animals and the high-profile killing of Cecil the Lion in 2015 have also kept the issue in the spotlight.
Over the years, the practice has caused devastating consequences for African wildlife and has become the greatest reason some animals face extinction.
In the case of the African elephant, it is estimated that more than 100,000 were killed for their ivory between 2014 and 2017 alone. In addition, big cats and rhinos, who see more than a thousand a year killed, are not immune to the threat of poaching.
In light of the excessive nature of poaching in Africa, one would think that any attempt to reduce or eradicate the practice would be welcome.
However, conservation communities across Southern Africa have expressed displeasure against a proposed bill in the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament which aims to stop commercial game hunters bringing trophies from their kills back into the UK.
The Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill is currently at the reporting stage within the House of Commons – the penultimate stage before it is sent to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Though it may look on the surface as a prospective law that is clearly in the interests of morality, animal welfare and even the conservation movement, it doesn’t appear to be that simple.
Stakeholders of African conservationists have suggested that the bill may actually do more harm than the good it set out to do. Because, according to them, the effect would be to essentially deprive the growing conservationist movement of necessary funds to continue its vital work, if the bill eventually became law.
Opposition to the bill can be seen as far back as 2019, when scores of conservationists wrote an open letter arguing that imposing a ban on trophy-hunting without viable alternatives would actually have a negative effect on biodiversity and local communities.
Instead, they believe that the efforts of conservation are better served with the concept of ‘managed hunting’, in which some animals are specifically bred to be hunted, or access is given for animals with unfavorable life prospects to be hunted.
THE FINANCIAL CASE
This has been the official position of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) since its 2016 report about ‘managed hunting’. One surprising revelation of this report is that conservancies are largely dependent on money from ‘managed hunting’ to meet their running costs.
But fewer surprises speak to the positive effects of managed hunting than its effect on the rhino population in South Africa and Namibia. According to the report, “Trophy hunting has increased the white rhino population in South Africa from 1,800 (in 1968) to around 18,400; and black rhino increased in South Africa and Namibia from 2,520 (in 2004) to 3,500. By the end 2015, the two countries conserved 90 percent of Africa’s rhinos, yet only 0.34 percent and 0.05 percent of their white and black rhino populations, respectively, were hunted.”
According to a study in 2007, 18,500 tourists paid over $200 million a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs, water buffalo, impala, and rhinos in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting. In addition to running costs, these funds assist with the implementation of a host of practical conservation policies. For example, in South Africa, the funds raised from archery hunters on the Big Five reserve pays for badly needed anti-poaching teams.
With large amounts like $200 million being generated for conservation, it is difficult to argue against the utility of ‘managed hunting’, especially when confronted with the fact that it has played a part in bringing rhinos back from the brink of extinction. Still, campaigners for hunting bans say the money from hunters rarely reaches local communities. The IUCN report also mentions the threat of corruption as a barrier to proceeds from ‘managed hunting’ being spent appropriately.
POST-COLONIAL HYPOCRISY
African conservationists have also labeled the charge of hypocrisy against the UK. Specifically, some believe that the UK is acting in its former colonial context by discouraging its citizens from hunting in African countries, while doing nothing to actually ban them from hunting in its own country.
During the open season, UK citizens are permitted to hunt all types of birds and mammals, though there are regulations in place for specific animal types.
Consequently, the development has left many African conservationists confused by the UK’s seemingly inconsistent actions.
The controversial bill still has a way to go before it officially becomes UK law, so conservationists throughout Africa have vowed to do all they can to help reduce the prospective damage that they envision the bill will do if it ever does become law.
