Traditional hunting should be Africa’s desire, not Trophy Hunting!

This article seeks to venture in the debate pertaining to the furore over trophy hunting as to whether it provides conservation value or not with the aim to both reflect and critique the twists and turns in the controversial subject of Trophy Hunting. The moral argument of this article is informed by research papers and journals written by international scholars who have studied in; International Animal Welfare, Biological Diversity, Ethics, Law, Economics, Evolutionary Science and Bio- Politics of Colonialism. I use their papers as a case study because they provide a rigorous and trenchant critique of Trophy Hunting and because of them, it allows me to ground and exemplify – in some detail – my concerns with the support for Trophy Hunting.

Trophy Hunting or Safari hunting refers to a type of sport hunting that involves paying a large fee to hunt an animal with a certain physical attribute. The environmental anthropologist Sian Sullivan illuminates further in her article published in the Journal of Political Ecology, that; trophy hunting is a “consumptive form of commodified wildlife utilization involving the killing of animals considered and constructed as ‘ wild,’ and the transportation and export of preserved parts of their bodies as objects effecting recall of a hunting event.” In terms of trophy hunting practice, the bulk of the beneficiaries is overwhelmingly white, primarily from the United States and Europe. The outfitters, the professional hunters, lodge and land owners, are almost always white and largely excludes the African people themselves. This is a form of recreational hunting for commercial exploitation that serves elite interests while being framed as necessary for maintaining animal population health. Thus in my view Western influence is what gave rise to trophy hunting. Africans were made reliant on the economic benefits that Western trophy hunting brought.

While Trophy Hunters proponents tout the industry’s ability to support CBNRM ( a participatory form of environmental governance that attempts to include local people in the management of natural resources with the objectives of reducing poverty and improving conservation), there is a lack of application for empowerment theory in the context of Trophy Hunting.

The balance of the evidence suggests that the public interest is not being safe - guarded in respect of the CBNRM specifically, and governance issues have plagued the arrangement since its inception ( Pickover, 2010). Although proponents of trophy hunting claim that it brings money to local communities and supports wild animal habitats, Trophy Hunting is associated with economic disempowerment such as inadequate, inconsistent, and unequitable distribution of funds from tourism, economic leakage, and loss of access to other economic activities due to tourism ( Scheyvens, 1999). International research studies have found that state- sponsored restrictions on the use of natural resources and an overreliance on Trophy Hunting, made local livelihoods vulnerable. There are many barriers for indigenous communities to continue traditional hunting practices, and this has been the case for nearly all African countries ( Hitchcock, 2001).

Community members directly affected by human – wildlife conflict have been deprived of their sense of ownership over wildlife and the need to be more involved in decision- making. For example, the government decides what to hunt, where to hunt and when to hunt and after hunting the government decides where the money goes. The community has no right to discuss Trophy Hunting.

The restrictions have resulted in hardships and frustration ( i. e. psychological disempowerment) and loss of traditional culture ( i. e. social disempowerment). The directly affected communities are not being allowed to hunt bush – meat which is their source of food and market. Trophy hunting is reported to even prevent communities from harvesting wild fruits in the bush. As a result, people cannot support themselves anymore. Additionally, as impoverished communities ( particularly the Khwe, San, Nama, Hambukushu) become more disconnected from their traditional knowledge and access to food, they are more vulnerable to health problems ( Kuhnlein et al., 2006) as they are eating types of food chronically low in protein when they get the little money from proceeds of trophy hunting. In actual fact, local hunting restrictions have contributed to changes in the relationship between local livelihoods and wildlife and a greater dependence on governments and nongovernment organisations.

Trophy hunting has also brought about social discontentment amongst communities through resentment towards others who benefit from tourism, the unequal distribution of cash benefits, favoritism and nepot ism in employment opportunities ( Boley & Gaither, 2016). The Economists at Large study also points out that a small percentage of total revenues actually accrue to the local communities who are purportedly the major beneficiaries of hunting revenue. A follow- up study from the same group of economists questioned a claim by Southwick Associates in 2015 that hunting generated $ 426 million to the eight countries of Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Economists at Large found, to the contrary, that “a more realistic estimate is less than $ 132 million per year”, tantamount to only 0.78 percent of the overall estimated tourism contribution to GDP in those eight countries. The Economists at Large report also rebuts the claims that trophy hunting supports more than 53,000 jobs and that on the contrary is more likely to be closer to between 7,500 and 15,500 jobs, roughly 0.76 percent of average direct tourism employment. A landmark 2019 study by Bertrand Chardonnet shows that, simply due to the decline of the industry, the hunting market does not have the means to pay the real price of safaris.

The presence of corruption too, constantly jeopardises theoretical economic model of trophy hunting. Corruption in the awarding of hunting concessions means that it is wealthy interests with close ties to government officials who win the contracts rather than conservation- minded hunters. Too often, hunters are reported to ignore scientifically established quotas, predominantly and excessively target prime males, or large- tusked elephant bulls which are deemed crucial to younger male navigation in unknown, risky environments. Pseudo- hunting, poaching and trading in illegal export markets is also said to be a phenomenon in trophy hunting. Due to the vested interests of the private conservancies Trophy Hunting has crowded – out traditional hunting as a necessary conservation alternative. It has in essence impacted negatively on how local communities perceive tourism. Many tourism initiatives do not fully meet the goals of economic empowerment and instead emphasize the inequities within a community limiting the sustainability.

The involuntary shift in the livelihood of the community reflects social and psychological disempowerment through the cultural changes. As a matter of fact, trophy hunting as a form of tourism has failed to catalyze locals’ pride in their unique culture. It has failed to enhance their self- esteem and pride in the culture and resources of the local people, including their status, and opportunities. As Sullivan writes, “this is an industry that consolidates rather than transforms circumstances of hyper- inequality. The reality is trophy hunting businesses are mostly run from freehold farms appropriated from Indigenous Africans through settler colonialism. As Sullivan posited in her research paper local “communities don’t benefit, income concentrates upwards towards the hunting operator whilst low incomes and precarity characterize the employment of African ‘ trackers and skinners and ‘ support staff”.”

What comes out clear from the debate is that, it is an indisputable fac t that dependency on Trophy Hunting increases the vulnerabi lity of communities if the market changes, if a ban is implemented, or given recent events such as the COVID- 19 pandemic. Thus, when disruptive changes occur, economic diversification is critical in supporting community resilience. Given this background, there is a need to acknowledge first and foremost that trophy hunting is a globally declining industry unable to contribute sufficiently to the full conservation costs of maintaining large intact ecosystems. In this instance, integrating empowerment practices that support connections between local communities’ livelihoods and the natural landscape is important for sustainability and maintaining traditional culture ( i. e. social empowerment) is critical to sustainable tourism.

The cultural importance of local - traditional hunting needs to be recognised along with the short and long - term impacts of hunting policies on local communities. This diversification can support psychological empowerment through enhanced opportunities and increase the overall capacity of the community through investment in local capacity to support a transition to economic alternatives investment.

The hunting policy ought to be framed for how it serves to mobilise resources and increase capacity of the local community.

Perspectives on who is an insider versus an outsider and the bulk of tourism ventures that fall on a select subgroup must be reviewed. Inclusivity and representation for diverse voices and perspectives and a decisionmaking process that supports active engagement which is transparent and fair must be embedded in the framework of hunting policy; in contrast, to the passive or exclusive engagement that African governments currently use to involve local communities. Additional dimensions for consideration in the policy should emphasize the environmental dimension that includes eco- friendly tourism activities, habitat restoration, control over environmental protection, sustainable use of resources, and knowledge and ability to mitigate negative environmental impacts. On the whole, the hunting policy should encompass community capitals aspects of social, political, financial, cultural capital that also includes natural ( i. e. communities engagement with natural resources to support capital that offer distinct components ( Stone & Nyaupane, 2017, 2018). The importance of local hunting “for food… as a birthright, and… as an integral part of people’s cultural repertoire” is one such a crucial factor for inclusion in the hunting policy.

This form of empowerment is intertwined with the ability to control decisions, the opportunity for diverse voices throughout stages of decision- making and planning, and where members of a community are active agents of change. It is only when community participation and empowerment are integrated into policy and development strategies that tourism can be deemed sustainable. Only when the central government devolves rights over wildlife and where revenues accrue to local communities can tourism be most beneficial. In the final analysis, I am arguing that Africa must retrace its steps back to traditional hunting where the cultural norm was to practice care and compassion, where animals were only killed if they were seen as a life threat or for food. Where hunting animals for sport would be considered taboo according to African belief system.

As opposed to trophy hunting which is an opprobrious, recreational, and economically extractive hobby for global elites of private concessions. This is an economic enterprise that is exclusive to elite tourists in “white hats and big rifles” as Ross Harvey ( director of research at Good Governance Africa, a nonprofit think tank based in South Africa) defines them. One of the world’s pre- eminent lion experts, Dr. Craig Packer, also corroborated to this by estimating that “80 percent of the lions left in the world are in the hunters’ hands”. That is to say - private hunting concessions have many more lions` stock volumes than do national parks in Africa. So, making an outcry for the continuance of Trophy Hunting which has been linked to disempowerment of communities as a remnant from colonialism while restricting local - traditional hunting, depicts the neo- colonialist history of natural resource management and trivializes the importance of local connections to the environment ( Mkono, 2019).

Trophy Hunting is essentially an imposed capitalism practice that has gradually forced and twisted communities to adopt and see the philosophy of Trophy Hunting as the only way that has improved and continue to improve their lives, when inherently it has brought about changes to local culture and traditional hunting practices that resulted in psychological disempowerment through feelings of hardship. It is inconceivable then that in this day and age where the dominance of the Anglo - American capitalism is finally making way and taking the decision to end its unequal, exclusive economic parasitic practice, some African governments are still desperately clinging to an injudicious past which forms a most part of colonial mischief, savagery and racist dimension!

Such reasoning is fixated in the mechanism of domination and the dehumanizing aggression of the colonizer. Nevertheless, it does not come as a shock as African governments have reshaped themselves into model students of neo- colonial reform.

They have relinquished national sovereignty to ‘ sell out’ to foreign powers and sacrificed their own citizens to appease the global capitalists even in the afterlife of colonialism. No - wonder they are still conforming to the problematic colonial law of res nullius, which is the classification of wild animals as – “objects owned by nobody, but which can be owned”.

The res nullius law solely favors private landowners in that, animals that were previously managed and effectively in the state’s custodianship can be simultaneously “taken ownership of ” by private concession owners if they crossed the ( removed) border. Besides, trophy - hunting has a long tradition in warfare both before and after the colonial period. It was, in particular, used to crush local resistance or insurgencies in Asia or Africa. Colonial powers rationalized brutal methods, including mutilation and taking of human skulls as war trophies. They were collected as war memorabilia, signs of power and victory, or commodities.

For instance, in the late 1890s, British forces decapitated Zimbabwean resistance fighters who revolted against the administration of the British South Africa Company in the First Chimurenga ( 1896– 1900). Cecil Rhodes sent the heads to Queen Victoria as symbol of victory and trophies of war. They became part of the collection of the Natural History Museum in London.

After the Battle of Magdala in northern Ethiopia in 1868, British troops cut hair from the corpse of ruler Emperor Tewodros II as trophy. It later became part of the National Army Museum in London. During the Sixth Frontier War ( between 1834 and 1853), British forces captured and killed Xhosa leader Hintsa and mutilated his remains, in order to collect souvenirs and degrade the “enemy”. In 1906, British colonial forces took the head of Zulu leader Bambatha ( Bhambatha kaMancinza, 1865– 1906), after defeating his rebellion against the introduction of a new tax in Battle of Mome Gorge. The soldiers collected the head as trophy proof of Bhambatha’s death ( See Webb, ‘ War, Racism and the Taking of Heads’, 55.).

In Namibia ( around1885- 1920), the Germany Imperial Policy established internment camps for systematic collection of human skulls of the Nama, Herero and the San and sent them to the Berlin Museum and universities. ‘ El – Negro’ whose body remains` were taken from Europe after being used as an anthropological sample for scientific racism and buried in Botswana was also a victim of the savagery trophy - taking adventure.

This episode illustrates the close parallels between animal trophy hunting and trophy – taking of human skulls in colonial violence as well as “the transportation and export of preserved parts of their bodies as objects effecting recall of a hunting event”, as environmental anthropologist Sian Sullivan put it. One might add that even the native lands of Tuli block, Tati land, CKGR, Gantsi, Chobe National Park amongst others in Botswana were annexed as British Crown - lands through the portends of Trophy Hunting during the Bechunaland protectorate.

Therefore, in my clearest conscience and untwisted consciousness, I am unreservedly of the unflinching conviction that Trophy Hunting and the human injustices it carries must be cast into the bottomless trash - pit of colonial history for good!