African Trophy Hunting

One of the most controversial subjects in Africa, or possibly the world, is the subject of trophy hunting. This means killing an animal solely to obtain a trophy like a shoulder mount, lion pelt, or moose rack. Trophy hunters usually do not consume the meat that is created by the harvesting of the animal. (¨Harvesting¨ an animal is a lighter way of saying ¨killing¨ an animal. I will use the term in places where animals are killed for meat, but not in trophy hunting.)  The point of this post is to discuss trophy hunting, specifically in Africa, bore you to death, and make me use what little is left of my one rotten brain cell.

One of the most disputed examples of trophy hunting is the case of Cecil the Lion. Cecil was an enormous lion that lived primarily in the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. For you to understand the story, you need to know how the park is structured. The majority of the park is a safe zone for the animals and contains several safari lodges, one of which we visited. Then there is an outer ring of the park, the ¨buffer zone¨, where hunting lodges are situated. Outside that zone is where villages and cities are. It is structured in a way that prevents animals from entering towns and causing problems. Hunters cannot hunt inside the main area of the park, just the buffer zone. Cecil was involved in an Oxford study as their poster child and wore a collar. Walter Palmer and his hunting guide knew that Cecil would patrol the railway line, near the edge of the safe zone, looking for animals killed by the train. One day, they dragged a carcass from the railway line into the buffer zone, so as to bait Cecil into an area where they could kill him. Cecil took the bait and wandered into the buffer zone, where he was shot with a bow.

The problem was that the guide and Walter took Cecil's collar to the railroad tracks and crushed it in an attempt to make it look like he had been hit by the train. The other thing was that Walters' permit had expired, and it was for a rifle, not a bow. It is legal to kill an animal with a collar, so long as the collar is turned in, and all Walter had to do was talk to an agent to have his permit refreshed. So, Walter could have killed Cecil completely legally. This whole thing sparked a huge outcry in Western Countries, where people were outraged that their special lion had been killed. One of the reasons that they felt like Cecil was their special lion is because they gave him a name, which had the psychological effect of making him seem like a person with a personality. Interestingly enough, hardly any Africans and/or locals cared or even knew who Cecil was. They didn't even know he existed, and even if they did, he was just another dangerous animal to them, who might wander into a village and eat their children.

Another largely disputed example of trophy hunting controversy is the recent culling of elephants and hippos in Namibia. They are culling the animals because a drought is causing people to starve and there is no food for the animals. The government is issuing more trophy hunting permits than usual. Of course, the Western World is outraged that elephants that do not belong to them are being harvested, even though they are in some areas dangerously overpopulated. The permits allow the hunters to take the animals skin and bones or whatever they want (except the tusks) and the meat is given to starving people of Namibia.  I am in favor of culling because the animals would die of starvation and dehydration anyway, a much slower and more painful death. Plus, it helps the people in need of food, and it helps bring down the numbers of animals in dangerously overpopulated areas.

One of the many arguments in favor of trophy hunting is that it helps create revenue for managing the animals habitat which would otherwise be destroyed. Landowners and governments are more likely to maintain land in a natural or semi-natural state if it is generating revenue, and although this leads to animals being killed, it is better than simply having the habitat turned into a resort or something.

Trophy hunting also requires huge swaths of land for the animals, and in these areas, only a few hunting camps can be maintained well. Typical safari camps, however, do not need as much operating land and can be close to each other without causing a lot of problems. Therefore, trophy hunting actually prevents the land from becoming very full of tourism areas, which results in less habitat loss and less stress for the animals.

There are many reasons for the maintenance of trophy hunting in Africa, but I think that the most important one is that it is up to Africans to manage their wildlife, not Westerners. The countries in Africa have wildlife experts that make the decisions that help the people, the country, and the animals. Most of the people making an outcry about hunting in Africa don't know what they are talking about and probably aren't even African. They are not experts, and it is not the job of the Western World to decide how Africa should manage Africa's animals.

Finally, trophy hunting protects the animals. In non-hunted areas, it was documented that there were 25 lions killed in one year in an area of much less than 500km2. In contrast, in areas managed for trophy hunting, the recommended quota is 0.5 lions per 1000km2 meaning that the level of lion killings that had no economic value is at least 100 times what trophy hunting permits. 

There are just as many arguments against trophy hunting as there are for it. One is that the majority of trophy hunters (70% +) are rich white Americans.  These people are not likely to be very good at hunting and are more likely to place a bad shot or rush the hunt and make an unsafe shot than an experienced guide, which could cause a painful death for the animal. It is claimed (key word claimed) that Cecil took 40 hours to die (evidence says it was more like 10 hours, and even this was mostly because Walter used a bow and arrows instead of a rifle like he was supposed to).

 Another argument against it is that it's unfair that a bunch of rich gringos (white people) come parading into other countries to wipe out their resources. Yes it's true that it is unfair, but the countries do allow it, so there must be at least some benefit that is greater than the loss.

In my opinion, the best argument against trophy hunting is the simple truth - trophy hunting is killing animals simply for bragging rights or a set of antlers, and the meat is seldom used, so it could be viewed as wasting the valuable life of an animal that did not need to die.

My personal opinion is that trophy hunting should be maintained in Africa. I think this because of all the aforementioned evidence, especially the part about letting Africa manage itself. Another fact that is important to remember is that a lot of the anti-hunting and trophy hunting arguments, especially on social media, are primarily emotion-based. A lot of the hullabaloo is simply people saying ¨I like elephants, so anyone killing elephants is a monster¨ while completely ignoring the fact that elephants are dangerous animals and can injure and kill people, or destroy peoples´ food source. The guy who likes hippos doesn't read the full story about the culling of hippos in Namibia.  He just goes on line and writes a bunch about how Namibia is savagely butchering hippos for fun, without taking into account that the hippos were going to die anyway. 

I am not trying to say that no one on social media knows what they are talking about and there is no evidence against it, just that a lot of it is based on emotion instead of fact. Even if we like the animals and don't want to see them killed, we need to look at the bigger picture and see that overall it is for the better. Personally I don't like it and wouldn't kill an animal just for bragging rights, but I am not against taking trophies from an animal that has been harvested for meat. I also don't think it is wrong to kill an animal for a trophy, so long as the meat is not wasted. I would hunt a lion myself if there was a way to bring the meat home, but the idea of wasting meat disgusts me. Anyhow, all the evidence points either to the ¨trophy hunting is beneficial¨ or to ¨it makes no difference¨ categories. However, I am not a biologist so I am just going to let the pros do their job.

In this hopefully boredom-inducing essay-like-thing, I have reviewed some examples of trophy hunting controversy, some arguments for and against, and my personal opinion. In the end, I base my personal opinion on the reduction of stress for the animals, the preservation of their habitat, and the fact that it really is none of our business how they manage their animals. I am bad at writing conclusions and introductions, so I am hoping that you are asleep from acute boredom by this point. I hope that you have fallen asleep from acute boredom and therefore will not notice that I already said that I hope you have fallen asleep by this point because of acute boredom twice already. The end.