Is ‘celebrity power’ undermining global conservation efforts?

Are celebrities (and by association the public) misguided in their support of trophy hunting import/export bans?

This is the question posed by Alex Morss, in a 15 January 2021 article published in The Guardian – “Celebrity power undermining global conservation efforts, [some] scientists warn”  – ie. the accusation being that celebrities/public have been fed lies (sic) by anti- trophy hunting campaigns (where it is implied that such campaigns are propaganda/evidence denial, taking donations from the gullible allegedly).

It seems easy for some to be dismissive of anyone forming an opinion that is not a trained journalist, and/or from a scientific background etc. But that does not mean that an individual (including celebrities) does not have the right (in an open democracy) to form their own opinion and express it within legal boundaries.

Also, it is of course perfectly reasonable to suggest that just because someone does have a background in journalism and/or science, they are also capable of being wrong, conflicted or not open to all the ‘facts’ – ie. journalists/scientists are not somehow by default, elevated above the normal human frailties of over-looking (accidently or otherwise) conflicting evidence, partiality, conformation bias etc.

Therefore, decrying those (including celebrities) for expressing an opinion – no matter how well informed, or otherwise – could be described as dismissive and/or arrogant.

There is clearly negative evidence (only some of which can be covered below) against trophy hunting’s claims based upon far more than “…..myths driven by emotion and morality that ignore critical facts” (sic). I would suggest that those that so strongly advocate for trophy hunting as only serving positive outcomes ignore critical facts/science that does not fit their own narrative.

Petition: “Newspaper falsely claims that trophy hunting opponents use myths and ignore scientific facts!!,” Pieter Kat, Lion Aid, Change.org, 21 January 2021

 

Is trophy hunting a positive benefit for all target species, or is there scientific evidence that trophy hunting can have negative impact?

Of course there is – for example, Chardonnet (IUCN 2019) found that of the big game hunting zones in Tanzania, 72% are now classified as “depleted” and useless to hunters, containing no game species. In hunting areas in Tanzania that still contain lions, despite a six-year minimum age limit, in 2015, 66.7% of the lions shot were five years old or under (thus depleting the gene pool and making lion survival untenable). There were simply no lions of the correct age left to be shot. Anyone (scientist or otherwise) that suggest such hunting zones have become depleted because of anti-trophy hunting campaigns is clearly seeking to deflect trophy hunting’s corrupt and negative impact on iconic, target species.

In 2018, the WWF’s “Living Planet Report“ warned that animal populations had declined by 60% since 1970:

“By killing breeding-aged animals and disrupting their social structures,” the report said, “trophy hunting is ‘super-additive’ because it causes wildlife populations to decrease at a faster rate than would naturally occur.”

So, perhaps the assertion that hunting concessions are now going unleased is solely the result of the anti-trophy hunting campaign is of course disingenuous – many hunting concessions are no longer commercially viable due to hunting’s (trophy, poaching, bush-meat) own depletion – let alone the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic restricting the hunter’s ability to travel and indulge their passion for killing wildlife:

According to the Chardonnet (IUCN 2019) report, poaching, hunting and the bushmeat trade have resulted in a rapid decline in trophy animals in Africa. This, amid growing public criticism of hunting, has led to a sharp drop in the number of hunters worldwide. Chardonnet (IUCN 2019) examined biodiversity conservation at genetic, species and ecosystem levels across the African continent, concluding that trophy hunting hasn’t lived up to its claims to support and pay for conservation.

Huge, formerly-hunted areas in Africa are now emptied of wildlife and are returning to pastoralism, challenging the trophy hunters’ claims that their sport can protect biodiversity and prevent encroachment by farmers (Pinnock, D. 2019). Chardonnet (IUCN 2019) found that 40% of the big game hunting zones in Zambia and 72% in Tanzania are now classified as “depleted” and useless to hunters, containing no game species.

No matter how many times trophy hunting advocates suggest that trophy hunting is not a major threat to wildlife (threats of course include habitat loss, prey base decline, climate change, human wildlife conflict, poaching etc.), trophy hunting is still a threat regardless of any ill-conceived threat ranking and/or biased group thinking:

Trophy Hunting was reported to have contributed to population declines outside of (and within some) protected areas of Tanzania (Lindsey et al. 2013) and was considered by Packer et al. 2011 to pose the greatest threat to the populations in Trophy Hunting areas.

In Katavi, Tanzania the estimated lion numbers were recorded as zero in 2014, from a population of 1,118 in 1993 (UNEP, 2015). It should be noted, that from 2010, 41 adult males (less than five years old) had been “harvested” for trophies in Katavi. Could this excessive trophy hunting of young male lions have been the end of the Katavi sub-population?

[Update] “Trophy hunting has had negative effects on lion populations throughout Africa, and the species serves as an important case study to consider the balance of costs and benefits, and to consider the effectiveness of alternative strategies to conserve exploited species” – “Assessing the sustainability of African lion trophy hunting, with recommendations for policy,” Creel et al., 9 June 2016, Ecological Society of America

Does trophy hunting pay its way?

Even if trophy hunting income did pay the majority of the income derived to conservation (rather than the majority of that income going into profiteer’s pockets), then it is nowhere near enough to cover the conservation costs. In the 2018 book, “Lion Hearted” (page 241) Dr. Andrew Loveridge (Research Fellow, WildCRU) explains:

“…..does the revenue from trophy hunting cover the costs of conservation? In Africa, on average, the annual cost of conservation (such as employment of park rangers, maintenance of infrastructure, and protection from poachers) comes in at around $500 per square kilometre (Lindsey et al. 2017). This is actually quite modest compared to what is spent on reserves in North America, where conservation expenditure sits at around $2,500 per square kilometre [Yellowstone National Park’s budget is even higher at $4,100 per square kilometre per year] (Adams 2004). According to conservation biologist, Peter Lindsey, revenues from hunting concessions amount to around $400 per square kilometre per year (Lindsey et al. 2012). Deduct hunting concession and trophy fees, then subtract operating costs and profits, and you discover that hunting revenue does not come close to covering the actual costs of conservation.”

Packer et al. (2013) calculated that the minimum of $2,500 per square kilometre per year should be applied to protect a lion population (at half its potential size) in an unfenced area. A Hwange National Park lion, such as Cecil, by the time he was 12 years old (as he was when killed for a hunting trophy in July 2015) occupied around 500 square kilometres, the average range of a lion in Hwange (Loveridge 2018).

Therefore, the investment made in Cecil’s protection within Hwange National Park could well have exceeded $1 million a year (500 square kilometres x £2,500 per square kilometre per year x 12 years = $15m).

Chardonnet (IUCN 2019) estimates a good hunting-zone density is two lions within 100 square kilometres. To shoot one lion sustainably would require 5,000 square kilometres and the annual upkeep of that area would be about $4-million.

Hence, the execution of a lion such as Cecil for a hunting trophy for a mere $50,000 looks like a very poor return on investment, with no potential ongoing conservation benefit for any remaining Hwange lions:

$50,000 equates to less than 20 square kilometres protected for a year at $2,500 per square kilometre per year to protect and conserve a lion (Packer et al. 2013). Even when the $15m ‘protection costs’ are pro-rated to multiple lions and species occupying the same protected area, $50,000 is still a poor return for a pride male lion such as Cecil.

No one will pay $4-million to shoot a lion. “This shows how hunting is powerless to fund its own conservation” Chardonnet (IUCN 2019). “The hunting market, it says, simply does not have the means to pay the real price of safaris. So hunting is running down its prime resource” – Pinnock, D. 2019

Trophy hunting income is insufficient to conserve wildlife – trophy hunting may hold sway over vast swathes of habitat, but it is not guaranteed to protect the wildlife inhabitants – either because of over-harvesting, biodiversity loss and/or inflaming human wildlife conflict:

[Update] The inability of trophy hunting to finance conservation is acknowledged within the Guardian article’s cited paper (“They also warn that well-meaning but ill-informed campaigning on the emotive issue risks imperilling millions of acres of wildlife habitat and African livelihoods“):

“Recent estimates suggest that as much as $1,000/km² may be required to maintain lion populations at a density of at least 50% of their potential carrying capacity (C. Packer, unpublished data) suggesting that hunting may generate a fraction of the funding needed to protect lions effectively in the long term” (Lindsey et al., 2012)

The theory that trophy hunting can reduce human wildlife conflict is espoused in “Landscapes of Fear” (Cromsigt et al. 2013), whereby the theory is that having trophy hunting in a region scares elephants (or other targeted species) away from the human settlements within that hunting concession. Even if that theory holds true, then by default this ‘fear’ would potentially drive trophy targeted species into conflict in other areas (in search of resources such as food and water) where the targeted population feels safer, thereby perpetuating the risk of human wildlife conflict in that ‘safe area.’

Elephant trophy hunting can increase human wildlife conflict, as evidence in Botswana in 2019, with unethical hunting practices clearly evident in Ngamiland where local elephants have been hunted –  detrimental to elephant conservation with dominant bull elephants removed, thus opening up local herds to delinquent behaviour and a reduced gene pool. Local Ngamiland communities were not informed of the hunting, do not benefit and are against the hunting in their area, which they say is likely to increase the potential of human wildlife conflict as the local elephant herds are negatively disrupted and angered by humans hunting with guns, thus endangering the local community that have previously co-existed with the elephants.

[Update] To reiterate, trophy hunting undervalues wildlife – anyone paying (trophy hunting), or being paid (poacher)  $40,000 to kill an elephant is ‘criminal’ when compared to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) estimated ‘value’/contribution of each individual elephant to a function ecosystem:

“The services of forest elephants are worth $1.75m for each animal, the International Monetary Fund’s Ralph Chamihas estimated” – “How much is an elephant worth? Meet the ecologists doing the sums,” The Guardian, 28 January 2021

Just because local communities might enjoy some trophy hunting income does not necessarily mean that wildlife in the locality is free from human-wildlife conflict and attrition for evermore – the risk of human wildlife conflict can be increased by the presence of trophy hunting.

Brent Stapelkamp worked within WildCRU for 10 years on the ‘Hwange project’ in Zimbabwe. Stapelkamp (2016) provided (IWB 2019,  Appendix 1) a welcomed, fundamental insight and perspective on that work, identifying patterns in the data that point to lion trophy hunting having a much wider negative impact; where trophy hunting of key pride members acts as a catalyst driving surviving pride members into human wildlife conflict.

[Update] Harvey (2019) states that “The letter [Dickman et al. 2019] goes on to argue that “ending trophy hunting risks land conversion and biodiversity loss.” Not ending trophy hunting carries similar risks. Shooting the elephants with the biggest tusks, for instance, means shooting the most reproductively successful animals who also play a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem functionality and herd sociology…..Shooting the lions with the biggest manes similarly undermines pride functionality. In both instances, the genetic selection effects are pronounced and problematic for biodiversity loss.”

[Update] “Negative conservation impacts of poorly managed trophy hunting may include overharvesting; artificial selection for rare or exaggerated features (e.g. abnormal colour morphs); genetic or phenotypic impacts (such as reduced horn size); the introduction of species or subspecies beyond their natural ranges (including into other countries); and predator removal” – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Unasylva, 249, Col. 68, 2017/1, Page 5

[Update] “Scientists report that trophy hunting can affect a specific, localised population of a given species in many ways: by reducing the number of animals in the population, by reducing the population’s reproductive capacity, and by altering the ecosystem where the species resides” –  House Committee on Natural Resources, 2016 – “Missing the Mark – African trophy hunting fails to show consistent conservation benefits“

So, is trophy hunting the categoric answer to wildlife conservation as espoused by Morss, Dickman et al.? Based on the readily available science, then trophy hunting’s categoric virtues (sic) are clearly disputable and should be subject to full, impartial scrutiny.

[Update] “In conclusion: the facts and indicators reveal a very rapid decline in big game hunting in Africa over several years: it does not protect the natural habitat from agropastoral encroachment, it can only finance a small percentage of the sum required for its conservation, and its socio-economic benefits are too low” –  Chardonnet (IUCN 2019)

Do alternatives to trophy hunting exist?

Alternatives exist in practice and theory (Ref Para 7. p97-108), but of course there is no simple panacea.

Even in areas where ‘alternative’ photographic tourism thrives, wildlife is still killed for trophies. For example, how does luring healthy male lions to their death from a photographic tourism area support the hunters’ claims that their ‘sport’ conserves lion habitat not suitable for photographic tourism? There has been no explanation why luring a healthy male lion to be killed in an empty hunting concession can be justified by pro-hunting advocates as ‘conservation.’

In 2017, another WildCRU study lion, Xanda (a pride male and son of Cecil), was targeted by trophy hunters – the lion was  lured from the protection of Hwange National Park in highly controversial circumstances (“Xanda – who is not telling the truth?“).

On the 14 August 2019, another male lion (11 years old) Seduli was lured from the protection of Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe to be executed for a hunter’s trophy needs. Seduli was in a coalition with another male lion, Mopane, with both lions frequently seen by photographic safari lodges in and around Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe.

“Until the lion has its own storyteller, tales of the lion hunt will always glorify the hunter” is often cited as a Zimbabwean proverb.

In the circumstances, perhaps this should be updated to “Even when the lion has its own storyteller, tales of the lion hunt and corruption will always glorify and exonerate the hunters.”

In 2018, a lion named Skye was hunted in Umbabat on the border of Kruger National Park, South Africa (Cruise 2018, Pinnock 2018) – Skye was baited and lured to his death on 7 June 2018 from the ‘protection’ of the Kruger National Park:

“Despite limitations, the practice of trophy hunting lions seems, too often, to targets males in their reproductive prime so that the hunter can get a better trophy. This can lead to elevated infanticide and reduced reproduction by the removal of too many adult males and this sadly leads to a rapid population decline.”

To this day, there has never been any official acknowledgement of the targeted lion’s identity and why a permit was issued to kill a lion protected within the Kruger:

“Every attempt at obtaining full and transparent disclosure from the Umbabat Reserve and from the Mpumalanga authority (the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency) that issued the hunting permit have failed. This included: requests for information on the actual hunt itself; the people involved; visual sight and identification of the lion skin to ascertain which lion was hunted; and details of the permit (including a copy thereof)” – Skye Report, 2018

Dismissing alternatives as pre-requisite before any divergence is possible from trophy hunting is a catch-22 – without external pressure, then changing the model from the trophy hunting industry does not easily happen, because trophy hunting is a profit generator for that industry – there is little to no trickle down to local communities:

“Research published by the pro-hunting International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, supported by other authors, finds that hunting companies contribute only 3% of their revenue to communities living in hunting areas. The vast majority of their expenditure does not accrue to local people and businesses, but to firms, government agencies and individuals located internationally or in national capitals.  As the quote above demonstrates, expenditure accruing to government agencies rarely reaches local communities due to corruption and other spending requirements” – Economists at Large 2013

For example, Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE programme (established 1981) was introduced to distribute dividends derived from Trophy Hunting to local communities. In a 2007 study (Kamhorst et al. 2007) communities that should have benefited from the CAMPFIRE programme reported that dividend had not been received since 1997, with no discernible additional benefits for employment or improved infrastructure – corruption has eaten away at CAMPFIRE’s promise/revenue:

“Despite significant support from international NGOs and foreign governments, including the United States, the CAMPFIRE program has been poorly administered and the government has been incapable of delivering the promised improvements in wildlife conservation or community development” –  House Committee on Natural Resources, 2016 – “Missing the Mark – African trophy hunting fails to show consistent conservation benefits“

The IUCN/PACO (2009) reported that the economic benefits to local communities of hunting areas are minimal, employment opportunities are poor and the wildlife contained within hunting areas are far less well protected than wildlife contained within protected, non-hunting areas.

In September 2019, the Zambia Community Resources Boards (ZCRB) released a press statement expressing their deep concern over the fact that the communities have not been given their share of either concession fees or the hunting revenues. According to Felix Shanungo (ZCRB President), the communities have received no concession fees since 2016 and no hunting revenue since last year.

The bottom line is, trophy hunting grossly undervalues wildlife, but regardless, very little of any trophy hunting fee filters down to cover the realistic costs of conserving the very wildlife that trophy hunting takes from protected areas and wildlife reserves.

Is trophy hunting a complex issue? Yes, of course it is.

Is trophy hunting an emotive issue? Yes, for those that support trophy hunting and those that oppose it, with far too much name calling on all sides.

But from a purely moral and ethical standpoint, then trophy hunting is indefensible – in jurisdictions where trophy hunting occurs, an individual animal matters (regardless of any ‘killing one to save the many’ arguments espoused by trophy hunting advocates).

In 2016 the Constitutional Court of South Africa gave judgement on a case brought by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) versus the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, the Constitutional Court ruled that:

“Animal welfare is connected with the constitutional right to have the environment protected (Section 24) through legislative and other means. This integrative approach correctly links the suffering of individual animals to conservation and illustrates the extent to which showing respect and concern for individual animals reinforces broader environmental protection efforts. Animal welfare and animal conservation together reflect two intertwined values.”

Is there a united consensus in the scientific community with regard to trophy hunting? It should be noted that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does not have a clear policy with regards to trophy hunting:

“…as an organisation IUCN has not adopted a policy in favour of or against trophy hunting” (attributed to Acting Director General of IUCN, Grethel Aguilar, January 2020)

The compatibility of the IUCN’s membership with ethical/moral leadership and therefore the IUCN’s impartiality when preparing trophy hunting guidance ([Update] or other Guardian article cited IUCN work – Unasylva,249, Vol 69, 2017/1 ) has been called into question by a 2017 legal conclusion (only made public in 2019) by the World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL) Ethics Specialist Group (ESG).

The ESG’s legal analysis (“Compatibility of Trophy Hunting as a Form of Sustainable Use with IUCN’s Objectives”) concluded that:

“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.“

In the “Sustainable use and trophy hunting: differences and IUCN positions“ 2017 paper developed to inform the IUCN Council on the subject, the ESG’s legal opinion is expanded upon, but the basis of the ESG’s position is also countered by clashing perspectives on trophy hunting’s ethical acceptability and trophy hunting’s claimed contribution to conservation (where individual animal suffering is deemed to be irrelevant for the ‘greater good’ for example). However, the IUCN’s core mission to ‘conserve the integrity and diversity of nature’ is undisputed, but the machinations of acceptable means by which to achieve that mission clearly are disputed.

The act of trophy hunting is inherently cruel, whereby the trophy hunter avoids a clean kill to preserve the look of the intended target animal as a trophy.

To preserve the target animal for its future use as a trophy (ie. gracing a wall in the hunter’s domain), a clean/quick head shot is avoided for fear it will leave the trophy’s skull/head scarred (and show the trophy’s means of execution). Therefore, the target animal is often wounded in other regions of its body, leading to a slower, more painful death (as demonstrated in July 2015, with the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, by Walter Palmer using a bow and arrow).

Or, in some cases, self-proclaimed ‘conservationists’/’hunting guides’ (eg. Ivan Carter) are reportedly happy to wound precious wildlife, then leave them for hours to suffer (for thrills and kills later in the day):

“In one clip, the Zimbabwean-born hunter leads viewers through the savannah towards a lion his group had ‘wounded several hours previously’. Over the footage, he explains: ‘My first shot went right in just underneath his chin. It was enough to turn him.’ The injured lion is then heard growling and, as it prepares to pounce, is shot again ‘just on the cheekbone’. Mr Carter, 50, then turns to the camera and says that ‘without a double gun, I would have been busy reloading as he took off and got on top of me’. In another scene, he guides a trophy hunter through an elephant kill and declares ‘brilliant second shot in the earhole’ as the creature collapses” – “’Saviour’ of Africa’s wildlife is revealed as cold-hearted killer: TV host Ivan Carter is caught on camera revelling in slaughter of elephants and lions,” Mail on Sunday, 31 May 2020

Regardless, the trophy hunter’s target is subject to distress:

“The second issue is the distress and suffering caused to individual animals by hunting. Hunted animals may show measurable indications of stress (Macdonald et al. 2000), starting at first awareness of the natural (Chabot et al. 1996) or human (Jeppesen 1987) predator. At some point during a successful hunt, the hunted animal fails to cope with events, and stress becomes distress” – (Loveridge et al. 2006)

Is the public wrong to support a call for hunting trophy import/export restrictions?

No, and some scientist acknowledge that public opinion is key:

In the 2016 report, “Report on Lion Conservation with Particular Respect to the Issue of Trophy Hunting,” (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU),  Macdonald, Professor David et al.) the conclusion was drawn that despite any consequentialism arguments given in support of lion trophy hunting,  the report speculates (at Paragraph 5.1) that even if lion hunting is considered the ‘best bad option’ for habitat security for example, public opinion (based upon a notion of ‘emotionally driven ethics’ or otherwise) is increasingly averse to the on-going social acceptability of lion/wildlife trophy hunting, regardless of any faith in its potential adherence to regulatory mandates etc.

[Update] A UK poll conducted by Survation (dated 24 July 2019), found that 86% of respondents expressed the view that “Trophy hunting should be universally banned.”

Should celebrities/the public ignore negative evidence and instead embrace a blanket acceptance of trophy hunting for evermore as only a force for good? Of course not.

[Update] Is it an outrage  (as suggested in the Guardian article and subsequent Twitter comments) that campaigns, their celebrity and public supporters are ‘bad people’ for seeking a ban on trophy hunting – ‘imposing’ ideals on third party countries that host trophy hunting?  Of course, it is impossible for any third-party to force a trophy hunting host country to impose any applicable legal constraints against its own wishes (only that host country can ban, or abolish trophy hunting concessions within its own borders). The UK’s consultation seeks to impose restrictions on hunting trophy imports/exports, which does not ‘ban’ the ongoing slaughter of wildlife in the name of trophies, but adds pressure for trophy hunting host countries to seek alternatives ways to finance habitat protection/conservation (which is not served, as detailed above by the incumbent trophy hunting industry across vast swathes of relevant habitat):

• The Guardian article cites “Tanzania lost anti-poaching units and millions of acres of hunting areas after elephant trophy hunting imports were banned in the US” as a means to suggest that trophy hunting defends habitat – the statement cited is by Catherine Semcer, Research Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) and “sustainable use advocate/lobbyist” – PERC has funding links to the oil industry and allegedly promotes climate change denial, which makes any of its reporting lack credibility as scientific proof of anything – so, a surprise to see it quoted in The Guardian, or why Alex Morss (proclaiming to challenge “increases in carbon-heavy, polluting aviation, unsustainable flight behaviour and its promotion in the media carbon climate“) considers PERC’s output as a credible, impartial journalistic source?

• If everyone had turned a blind eye, then ‘legal’ apartheid, or ‘legal’ slavery would have potentially endured even longer than they did. I doubt anyone would say, those seeking a ban, or abolition of the recognition given to both practices was a mistake. Fortunately, the world did not turn and look the other way and allow such practices to endure;

• It took decades for the hunting industry (under external public pressure) to see the rot within its ranks, finally fragmenting and abandoning support for ‘canned’ hunting – seemingly as a self-protectionist measure after 20+ years of unquestioning support. I would suggest the hunting industry’s motivation to distance itself from ‘canned’ hunting is to serve its own, wider public relations purposes, not because the hunting industry has fundamentally shifted its moral and ethical compass one iota.

If the same celebrities decried in the Guardian article supported trophy hunting, would the same scientists be so keen to dismiss their support as ill-informed and allege an abuse of power? I suggest not.

 

Further Reading

“Open letter to Michel Mantheakis – chairman of the Tanzanian Hunting Operators Association (TAHOA),” Africa Geographic, 27 February 2024

“George Monbiot’s defense of trophy hunting makes no sense,” Jared Kukura, Wild Things Initiative, 29 August 2022

“‘Hunting Africa’ : Trophy Hunting, Neocolonialism and Land,” Sian Sullivan, The Land Magazine, 2022

“BORN FREE’S POSITION ON TROPHY HUNTING,” Born Free Foundation policy statement, February 2021

“Trophy hunters, you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” The Hill, 25 January 2021

“Stop the Illegal Wildlife Trade: The former naval officer now leading Kenya’s fight against poaching,” The Independent, 24 January 2021

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) was set up in 1989 – “In the three decades since, Kenya’s elephant population has more than doubled to an estimated 34,000, along with 1,258 rhinos…..Last year, for the first time since 1999, Kenya recorded zero rhino deaths to poaching……..Elephant poaching has also reduced from 350 a year five years ago to just 11 in 2020, which is the lowest recorded yearly total ever. “I believe it is not a pipe dream to get Kenya’s poaching level to zero””– Note: To reiterate, Kenya does not support trophy hunting, but South Africa earns over $112m USD per annum from trophy hunting (Economists at Large 2013), but still fails despite this trophy hunting income to protect its rhino herds in Kruger National Park from poaching attrition, where recent data reveals two-thirds has been lost over the past decade to poaching.

“Chris Packham on the legacy of Cecil the lion killing,” Belfast Telegraph, 22 January 2021

Chris Packham narrates Cecil: The Lion King, as part of Big Cat Week on National Geographic WILD, which runs from February 1-5.

“Informing The Debate on Trophy Hunting,” IWB, 17 July 2020

South Africa  – Submission to the High-Level Panel – ‘National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) – IWB, June 2020

“Can Africa’s last lions be saved from human greed? Trophy hunting threatens to silence the prides,” Cyril Christo, The Hill, 10 January 2020

United Kingdom – “Consultation on controls on the import and export of hunting trophies” and “Call for evidence on the scale and impacts of the import and export of hunting trophies” – IWB, December 2019

“Impartial Science and Trophy Hunting,“ IWB, 28 October 2019

“Compatibility of Trophy Hunting as a Form of Sustainable Use with IUCN’s Objectives,” IWB, 2 October 2019

“Trophy Hunting; Busting the myths and exposing the cruelty,” Born Free Foundation, July 2019