Trophy Hunting almost worthless: new report

Chlidonias

Chlidonias

Moderator
Staff member
15+ year member
Wildlife Extra News - Trophy hunting almost worthless according to a new report
New Report: Economics of Trophy Hunting in Africa Are Overrated and Overstated
June 2013. A new report that analyses literature on the economics of trophy hunting reveals that African countries and rural communities derive very little benefit from trophy hunting revenue. The study, authored by Economists at Large-commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International and Born Free USA/Born Free Foundation-comes amid consideration to grant the African lion protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).

"The suggestion that trophy hunting plays a significant role in African economic development is misguided," said economist Rod Campbell, lead author of the study. "Revenues constitute only a fraction of a percent of GDP and almost none of that ever reaches rural communities."

Only 3 percent of revenue actually reaches the rural communities where hunting occurs
As a portion of any national economy, trophy hunting revenue never accounts for more than 0.27 percent of the GDP. Additionally, trophy hunting revenues account for only 1.8 percent of overall tourism in nine investigated countries that allow trophy hunting, and even pro-hunting sources find that only 3 percent of the money actually reaches the rural communities where hunting occurs. While trophy hunting supporters routinely claim that hunting generates $200 million annually in remote areas of Africa, the industry is actually economically insignificant and makes a minimal contribution to national income. Click here to read the report.

Non-consumptive nature tourism
"Local African communities are key stakeholders for conservation, and they need real incentives for conservation," said Jeff Flocken, North American regional director, International Fund for Animal Welfare. "Non-consumptive nature tourism-like wildlife viewing and photo safaris-is a much greater contributor than trophy hunting to both conservation and the economy in Africa. If trophy hunting and other threats continue depleting Africa's wildlife, then Africa's wildlife tourism will disappear. That is the real economic threat to the countries of Africa."

Lions suffering from trophy hunting
Many species suffer at the hands of trophy hunters including the African lion. The number of African lions has declined by more than 50 percent in the past three decades, with just 32,000 believed remaining today. The steepest declines in lion population numbers occur in African countries with the highest hunting intensity, illustrating the unsustainability of the practice.

"Trophy hunting is driving the African lion closer to extinction," said Teresa Telecky, director, wildlife department, Humane Society International. "More than 560 wild lions are killed every year in Africa by international trophy hunters. An overwhelming 62 percent of trophies from these kills are imported into the United States. We must do all we can to put an end to this threat to the king of beasts."

Listing the African lion as endangered under the ESA would generally prohibit the import of and commercial trade in lion parts, and thus would likely considerably reduce the number of lions taken by Americans each year.

"The U.S. government has a serious responsibility to act promptly and try to prevent American hunters from killing wild lions, especially when the latest evidence shows that hunting is not economically beneficial. Listing the African lion under the Endangered Species Act will help lions at almost no cost to African communities. Government inaction could doom an already imperilled species to extinction through much of its range," said Adam Roberts, executive vice president, Born Free USA.

A copy of the economic study is available for download. For more information about African lions, please visit Help protect African lions from hunters | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Click to expand...
 
you'll need to go to the page to be able to click on the link in the middle of the article.
 
Suppose they will be happy when they go back to cattle production and get rid of the wildlife. Then all the leopards and lions will be poisoned as they are now where local people can get no financial benefit from those predators which eat their stock.
 
I admit it is a bit the goose was killed by the wolf storyline. Having the Humane Society involved I am not to sure whether I would line this in with independent high standard research into the economics of the wildlife conservation community in Africa.

I have little or no regard for / faith in the conventional financial accountancy men in dealing with nor having sufficient knowledge of wildlife conservation economics in general to be able to come to this conclusion. Nor do I think that the HS and BF are paragons of purity in deciding one way or the other.

Is f.i. lion hunting promoting conservation should be an open debate, yet it is highly politicised at best with both parts of the divide claiming to be true to form and function of wildlife economics.

In a world were traditional hunter gatherers and nomadic pastoralists routinely kill lions as competitors to their livestock ... I see that as a far greater threat. Yet these are the local communities that HS is claiming should be the benefactors of. I say there is no benefits without sacrifice and ... it can be done! Just look at f.i. Kenya and their programmes for lion conservation and dealing with the local populations and where these are actually involved in conservation programs and not just bystanders given a financial hand-out. My respects lie with those I know who work hard to make this a reality in a not so B/W world!
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I admit it is a bit the goose was killed by the wolf storyline. Having the Humane Society involved I am not to sure whether I would line this in with independent high standard research into the economics of the wildlife conservation community in Africa.

I have little or no regard for / faith in the conventional financial accountancy men in dealing with nor having sufficient knowledge of wildlife conservation economics in general to be able to come to this conclusion. Nor do I think that the HS and BF are paragons of purity in deciding one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I was initially surprised when I read this, because I heard about the programme in Zimbabwe when I was there, many years ago, and I believed it was working. And I was under the impression it was working elsewhere too.

Looking at the article I noticed it is compiled from reading articles and papers - they don't appear to have actually gone to Africa and spoken to anyone or looked at how things work. One of the things they use to draw conclusions is an expenditure chart for a hypothetical hunting company in Tanzania.

I guess this might be a valid way of compiling a report, but it's not the way I would do it. Of course, I'm not an economist and maybe this is acceptable in accountancy circles.

So I thought I would have a quick look at the sources they used in the bibliography, to see if anything stood out (like a predomination of documents from animal welfare organisations), but I didn't see anything that jumped out at me. There were some papers reliable papers (like one from IUCN) which - if I had the time - I would read to verify the information used was not taken out of context.

The one thing that did make me stop and think was the article by Sachedina on 'Conservation, Livelihood and NGO's in Tarangire' which is quoted or cited a few times; apparently Sachedina "conducted extensive fieldwork in northern Tanzania investigating the role of foreign NGOs, tourism and hunting in conservation and development." And his research was published - for some reason I cannot fathom - in the Word Journal Of The International Linguistic Association.

Like Kifaru Bwana, I'm not convinced this is completely accurate or unbiased.

:p

Hix
 
Kiaru Bwana has summed it up perfectly!

Considering the sponsors of the report, I would take it with a grain (no a pound) of salt.
 
I find it rather odd that the born free foundation who are relentless in their agenda to close zoos but keep the animals for themselves in their own "reserves" was founded on the story of Joy Adamson and her lioness Elsa, But as even Sir David Attenborough himself states the whole Elsa story was created by violence, her mother was killed her son shot, her cubs fed on animals George Adamson shot for them etc, etc. Born free don't mention that,

Animal welfare issues quite rightly are a serious thing, but they shouldn't be judged by anthropomorphic ideals. Sadly "reports" like this are believed by people who don't question the ethos behind them.
 
I also take this report with a grain of salt.

That hunting is just a fraction of tourism money is not bad. It may be enough for locals to tolerate wildlife, and impossible to get otherwise.

I no longer blindly believe every such news. For animal welfare organizations, one news about saving animals in TV means approximately 1000GBP gain in donations. At the same time, they are rarely questioned how objective their reports are, and how effective their plans are.

Bad plan may mean that lions are killed by farmers and wildlife habitat lost to farms. I am not certain that IFAW will prevent it, considered it or even cares about it.
 
I'd be interested to know how much many donated to IFAW actually goes towards the animals, and how much is used to pay their staff, pay for advertising campaigns etc - and pays outside firms to produce reports like this one.

:p

Hix
 
Very good question. I do know (according to Charity Navigator) that Humane Society of the US spends 20% on fundraising. Their annual budget is in the hundreds of millions (really) so that means tens of millions just for fundraising that does not go to animals.
 
The organisations listed in the article is a dead giveaway that the info in the article is false. Especially since HSUS has proven themselves that they are a lobbiest group that had the head of the IRS as among their members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top