Any ban on trophy hunting imports must be very carefully-aimed

Last month marked five years since Cecil the Lion was killed by an American hunter in Zimbabwe; an anniversary that has sparked renewed interest in the UK Government’s proposed trophy hunting import ban.

In response to a pro-ban campaign backed by activists and celebrities, more than 50 African community leaders signed an open letter defending their “basic human right to sustainably use the natural resources on which our communities’ livelihoods depend” and urging Ricky Gervais, Ed Sheeran and others to “stop undermining our globally recognised conservation efforts”.

Trophy hunting’s controversial role in conservation has never been more heavily scrutinised, but of the leading conservation bodies, only the regional office of WWF-UK has adopted an unconditionally anti-hunting stance. Most conservation biologists, including my colleagues at Botswana Predator Conservation and the researchers who studied Cecil, have been notably reluctant to condemn it.

Counter-intuitively, far from being a threat to endangered wildlife, trophy hunting has helped many populations rebound. Hunters’ dollars help protect more wilderness than Africa’s entire national park network, maintaining a vital anti-poaching presence, and supporting local communities with meat, revenue and infrastructure. Those unfamiliar with on-theground realities often suggest that trophy hunting could be replaced by photographic tourism, but tourists have proven reluctant to visit the sort of areas traditionally used for hunting; flat, scrubby, landscapes which support fewer animals and are often infested with biting flies.

And yet they play a vital role in connecting the otherwise fragmented network of protected areas, facilitating gene flow and sheltering “fugitive species” such as African wild dogs, which compete poorly with lions in tourist honeypots. They provide a crucial buffer between rural communities and wildlife, generating revenue to offset the costs of living alongside dangerous wild animals.

Banning hunting has rarely yielded positive results. Kenya experienced a precipitous decline in its wildlife following its ban, while the moratorium in Botswana saw many hunting areas fail to attract any tourists to replace lost revenue. Until viable alternatives can be established, abandoning trophy hunting will only increase the threat from poachers and see yet more wilderness converted into agriculture.

Public objections to trophy hunting are natural, but with UK hunters forming a small fraction of the market, a blanket ban will have little effect on bad practice, and would only undermine responsibly-managed hunting. Alternatively, a ‘smart ban’ prohibiting imports from nations where hunting does not adequately serve conservation or local communities, could spur positive change. Conservationists and communities across Africa will be watching anxiously, hoping that we do the right thing.

Dr Hugh Webster is a conservationist and author of The Blue Hare

Counterintuitively, far from being a threat to endangered wildlife, trophy hunting has helped many populations rebound