Top academics slam trophy hunting misinformation

There are grave concerns that an ‘avalanche’ of false information put forward by antis is beginning to influence political decision-making

Leading academics have hit out at an “avalanche” of misinformation over trophy hunting. The proposal to ban the import of hunting trophies to the UK has led to a spike in campaigning against the practice of travelling overseas to hunt, with campaign groups pushing a potent antihunting narrative.

Adam Hart, professor of science communication at the University of Gloucester and a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, told Shooting Times: “The misinformation — some might term it disinformation — being put forward in the trophy hunting debate is exceptional. It is such an avalanche it is hard to combat, which I suspect is part of the strategy.”

Nikolakj Bichel, of the University of Oxford Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, agreed, saying: “While you can find misinformation on both sides of the trophy hunting debate when you really get into it, the misinformation that the general public encounters is largely one-sided.”

Prof Hart pointed out that the misinformation had gone far beyond the public sphere and has begun to influence political decision-making.

He explained: “The recent All-party Parliamentary Group on trophy hunting published a report that is appalling in its treatment of evidence, while an evidence session given in Parliament contained multiple unchallenged and easily falsifiable ‘facts’ presented by people salaried by organisations pushing bans.”

Among all the groups campaigning against trophy hunting, the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which is run by former League Against Cruel

Sports chief executive Eduardo Gonçalves, has stood out for its willingness to promote misinformation in an attempt to influence debate.

Mr Bichel commented: “Unfortunately that campaign is so riddled with disinformation that the public has no chance of making an informed decision if this is their only source of information. So they end up thinking that trophy hunting is a conservation threat, which it generally isn’t, and they’ll never know that it can be a conservation benefit.”

Prof Hart issued a warning of what he thought the likely consequences would be if these campaigns succeeded.

He said: “Bans without alternatives will cause harm to habitat, species and communities, and to pursue such bans through misinformation motivated by a hatred of hunting, under a banner of moral righteousness, is inexcusable.”

“The public has no chance of making an informed decision”

22% Less than an hour and a half

38% Two hours tops

33% I’d do three

There has been a spike in campaigning against the practice of travelling overseas to trophy hunt