Why Britain should Ban Hunting Trophies ASAP

Stephen Wiggins Article, Event 2 Comments

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Banning Trophy Hunting are holding a public webinar discussion on 11 January 2022, 11:00 – 12:00 hours (GMT):

On Tuesday 11 January, the APPG launches its new report ‘Shooting Up – Are Britain’s Trophy Imports & Hunting Companies Booming?‘ in a webinar open to the public, and challenges the government to bring a swift end* to imports of hunting trophies into Britain.

The APPG is calling on the government to name a date for the introduction of its bill, or to instead adopt the Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill promoted by backbencher John Spellar MP which has won cross-party support and is scheduled for debate on Friday 14 January” – APPG on Banning Trophy Hunting

Public Webinar access – Why Britain should Ban Hunting Trophies ASAP – available via ZoomFacebook Live and YouTube:

Panellists include world-famous conservationist Dr Jane Goodall; Lt Gen Serestse Khama, former President of Botswana; Professor Phyllis Lee of the Amboseli Trust; Sir Roger Gale MP (Con); Baroness Sue Hayman (Lab); Dave Doogan MP (SNP); Lord Chris Rennard (Lib Dems); Hywel Williams MP


* It was reported 10 December 2021 that the conclusions of the UK Consultation on Hunting Trophies had led to government proposals to comprehensively ban the importation of hunting trophies into the United Kingdom.

The second reading of the Rt. Hon. John Spellar MP’s Private Members’ Bill, “Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill” is now due 14 January 2022, with the supported suggestion that the DEFRA proposed hunting trophy import restrictions (“Policy response”) could be incorporated into Rt. Hon. John Spellar MP’s Private Members’ Bill (PDF version “Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill – As introduced“) and thus gain an expedited passage of the necessary hunting trophy import legislation through the parliamentary process – if not, then the original passage for such hunting trophy import restrictions remains incorporation into the ‘Animals Abroad Bill,’ which means there is an unnecessary delay with no formal parliamentary timetabling announced for the ‘Animals Abroad Bill.’


Further Reading

‘Poorly conceived’ trophy hunting bill puts wildlife at risk, UK government told,” The Guardian, 13 January 2022 – An ‘Open Letter‘ from Dickman (WildCRU Oxford), et al. [duly noted that signatories to the ‘Open Letter’ and any affiliations, associations, financial links etc. to hunting lobbies were not revealed in the Guardian article]:

  1. The government’s “trophy hunting bill” is not in the public domain yet (with the trophy hunting import legislation due to be incorporated within the yet unpublished ‘Animals Abroad Bill’). So how can the “trophy hunting bill” (sic) be branded “‘Poorly conceived’” (sic) before the actual contents are public? Only the United Kingdom (UK) Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’) “Policy response“ and the draft content (which has yet to formally incorporate any of the “Policy response“ content) of John Spellar MP’s proposed private member’s bill has been put into the public domain to date.
  2. The UK Consultation (to which the Dickman et al  had the opportunity to make a submission) on hunting trophies studied the science over the course of some 21 months and reported its conclusions 10 December 2021 – concluding that trophy hunting puts wildlife at risk. The proposed policy to ‘bringing forward ambitious legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies from thousands of species’ has not been made up in wilful ignorance of the science, but because of it.
  3. The pro-trophy hunting campaign lacks ‘celebrity’ backing and resents it – “Is ‘celebrity power’ undermining global conservation efforts?” IWB, 22 January 2021
  4. The pro-trophy hunting lobby has in the past failed to openly declare vested-interests that funds its work;
  5. In the past ‘African voices’ have turned out to be fakes backed by the pro-hunting lobby;
  6. The IUCN does not have a uniform stance with regard to trophy hunting, but has internal conflicts with trophy hunting and the influence of IUCN members that have clear pro-trophy hunting agendas, such as Conservation Force Inc., where its impartiality is openly questioned in the public media:”………critics have described it [Conservation Force Inc.] as a “an around-the-clock international communication headquarters and advocacy ‘war room’” for the pro-hunting lobby that has repeatedly blocked attempts to protect species including lions and giraffes – “Anti-hunting groups seek to oust big-game hunters from global conservation body,” The Telegraph, 3 October 2019.
  7. A November 2017 legal opinion reported to the IUCN (only made open to public scrutiny in 2019) concluded:

This report addressed the issue of “sustainable use” as a possible criterion to determine the eligibility for IUCN membership of organizations supportive of trophy hunting. It also addressed the more general issue of IUCN’s position on trophy hunting. Both issues are intertwined and need to be considered simultaneously. Trophy hunting is not consistent with “sustainable use”. And even if it were, “sustainable use” is not the sole criterion for the decision on eligibility of organizations seeking IUCN membership. The critical question is whether trophy hunting as it is practiced by individuals and promoted by certain hunting organizations may be consistent with IUCN’s general objectives as expressed in Articles 2 and 7. This is clearly not the case. Any other view would threaten IUCN’s credibility for providing moral and ethical leadership in conservation policies. It would certainly undermine the many efforts of IUCN members to promote a just and sustainable world” –  World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL) Ethics Specialist Group (ESG)


The UK’s trophy hunting import ban needs to be a smart ban – an open letter,” IUCN SULi, January 2022

On the 11 January 2022, the AAPG on Banning Trophy Hunting  launched a new report:

[Update] “Shooting Up – Are Britain’s Trophy Imports & Hunting Companies Booming?

Hunts threaten big game gene pool,” The Times (paywall), 11 January 2022

The Times view on big game hunting: Shameful Trophies,” The Times (paywall), 11 January 2022 – “Killing exotic animals for sport has no justification and must be halted by law

Judi Dench and Peter Egan: Britons fuel gruesome big game trophy trade,” The Times, 11 January 2022

Update to the UK Animal Rights Initiative,” Safari Club International (SCI), 10 January 2022 – See how SCI set up fake African lobbies to promote SCI’s own killing agenda, spreading disinformation and a false-narrative. This fake SCI campaign shows that SCI has no credible ‘African voice,’ just their own selfish needs seeking to perpetuate the exploitation…..

Military dog handler is one of Britain’s top trophy hunters and keeps sick souvenirs,” Daily Mail, 8 January 2022

Comments 2


    The killing for fun industry has shot themselves in the foot for NOT policing the industry ie. Cecil’s illegal kill and now Mopane.

    I have warned esp in the US that killing our big cats will turn the public against all hunters. We have already lost our gene pool of iconic animals.

    Not a big tusker left in Botswana or Zimbabwe. Baiting our cats out of the safety of the parks is the same as shooting them inside the park. Most of all killing is legal because of corruption and the lobbying of the hunting industry. I bet I could shoot a giraffe in the zoo if I paid off the correct official.

    Now the noose is tightening on ALL hunting. I hate to use the term hunting as no big cats are hunted. Dogs, bait, drag lines, spotlights and shooting at night from the safety of a blind or the back of a cruiser is NOT hunting in anyone’s book.

    1. Post
      Stephen Wiggins

      Brian, Indeed – the hunting industry has had decades to overhaul and manage itself, ensure compliance that aligns with today’s principles and public acceptability to try to maintain hunting’s own credibility. But in reality much of the hunting lobby has become its own worst enemy – consumed with denial, self-delusion, self-interest, conflicts of interest, commercial greed, corruption and belligerence.

      Of course, blaming the ‘antis’ is the hunting industry’s default, spending $m on lobbying to defend all hunting practices against the ‘antis’ (because the ‘antis’ have dared to show the glaring faults within the hunting industry and its lack of moral/ethical acceptability in today’s society). The hunting industry should look themselves in the mirror first and foremost, to see themselves as the ones to blame for the lack of public acceptability for the hunter’s ‘killing for fun’ obsession(s) – Ref: https://iwbond.org/2019/01/09/protecting-hunting-from-the-hunters/

Leave a Reply