In a recent letter to the Guardian, four conservation experts argue that a UK ban on trophy hunting imports would harm, not help, conservation efforts. The letter, signed by Prof Amy Dickman of the University of Oxford, Prof Adam Hart of the University of Gloucestershire, Dr Dan Challender of the University of Oxford, and Dr Dilys Roe of the IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, states that such bans are misinformed, hypocritical, and ignore the rights and welfare of local communities.
Morality vs. Conservation
The experts urge campaigners to decide whether their opposition to trophy hunting is based on morality or conservation. If it is about morality, they argue, the UK should also ban domestic trophy hunting of species like red deer—a measure that has never been proposed. If it is about conservation, they note that trophy hunting is not a key threat to lions or other species. Instead, it benefits them by conserving more land in Africa than national parks do.
Habitat Loss as a Greater Threat
Biodiversity is far more threatened by habitat loss, which bans are likely to amplify by reducing income for protected areas. Hunting areas are often not viable for photo-tourism, which brings its own environmental impacts.
Opposition from African Countries
The letter highlights that proposed bans have been strongly opposed by representatives from countries such as Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, which have a far better conservation record than the UK. These countries have called the proposed import bans racist and colonial, undermining both conservation and livelihoods.
Call for Evidence-Based Policies
The experts conclude that those pushing for bans either do not understand the facts or choose to ignore them. Neither approach, they say, is good for advancing evidence-based, equitable, and effective conservation policies that the British public surely wants.
