Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

Those of us who dislike trophy hunting should propose alternative plans rather than bans

Amy Dickman
By Amy Dickman
19 Aug 2024
Facebook
21
Rather than pushing a false binary of people having to be ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ trophy hunting, there needs to be more recognition of the nuance and complexity of the topic, and critically, more suggestions for plans instead of just knee-jerk demands for bans.

Recently, Ross Harvey wrote in Daily Maverick that he was confused that I and other scientists have pushed back against calls to ban elephant hunting in northern Tanzania. Harvey seemed to think the number of “super-tuskers” is fixed, while of course new “super-tuskers” emerge even as others die.

He solely focused on the “genetic heritage” of bull elephants, while ignoring the fact that “super-tusker” genes will be carried across the population, including by females and younger males.

Indeed, because older males are more likely to have bred – even before peak breeding – genes are more likely to be lost from a population if younger animals die who have had less chance to breed.

He also seems to feel that trophy hunting precludes photo-tourism revenue, which is nonsensical: if you have a reasonable wildlife population, then photo-tourism can work alongside trophy hunting. That combined model is successfully used across the world, including for critically endangered species, and using both approaches has been key to community-based conservation models. 

From Harvey’s piece, readers could be forgiven for thinking trophy hunting was a leading cause of death for Amboseli elephants: yet in 2022-23, Amboseli Trust for Elephants recorded 112 deaths, far outstripping the five killed in Tanzania.

It is also baffling to see him berating hunters for abandoning land, when it has increased international restrictions of exactly the kind that Harvey pushes for which precipitated such abandonment, reducing management and increasing conservation threats.

He also suggests it is unethical to hunt elephants using “high-calibre rifles”, yet I am hard pressed to think of a weapon that would be preferable if the aim is a quick kill.

More alarmingly, there are areas where I think Harvey’s piece moves from possible misunderstanding into misinformation. For example, he mentions trophy hunting when citing a study about increasing tusklessness, yet trophy hunting is not mentioned once in the source article.

As Harvey must know, the paper was about growing tusklessness in a population devastated by 15 years of civil war, with intense ivory poaching and more than 90% decline in large herbivores: a world away from five elephants killed in northern Tanzania, from a large, generally growing population.

The rights and needs of local people and the impacts on conservation matter far more than the needs of researchers or campaigners.

Furthermore, the tusklessness in that study appeared strongly female-linked, again showing that tusk size is about population-level genetics, not just a small number of males.

I and other scientists speak out on trophy hunting because it is complicated, and facts matter. Speaking out does not mean we are “defenders” of trophy hunting, as Harvey falsely implies: I for one (an animal-loving vegetarian) have spoken publicly and repeatedly about how much I dislike it.

But – critically, and seemingly unlike Harvey – I realise that it is not my personal views which count, but the rights and needs of local people and the impacts on conservation, which matter far more than the needs of researchers or campaigners.

There are some facts that we should all agree on: trophy hunting can harm individuals and populations, just as it can benefit wildlife populations and species. It occurs across the world, including extensively in North America and Europe, and is not mentioned as a key threat to a single species on the IUCN Red List. It can both harm and benefit local people.

Equally as importantly, bans and restrictions have also led to harms for people and wildlife, including increasing human-wildlife conflict.

Yet not all trophy hunting is the same, and some cause more concern than others. That is the case with these cross-border elephants, which belong to Kenya when there, and to Tanzania when there.

I can see compelling arguments for a particularly nuanced approach here: this elephant population spans countries with different laws on trophy hunting (although both are ranked highly for conservation success), the elephants carry genes for incredible tusks, and the “super-tuskers” generate highly significant income in Kenya.

But I believe simply demanding bans is not the way forward, as it ignores other, equally important realities: that trophy hunting apparently generates three times more money in Enduimet, northern Tanzania, than photographic tourism does, that Tanzania uses hunting revenue to help support its internationally important protected area network, and that this revenue positively impacts local people, who legitimately choose trophy hunting as part of their wildlife management.

So what to do? Well, rather than simply seeking to create division, as Harvey’s piece seems to do, I think the focus should be on plans, not bans. We should recognise different, but equally legitimate concerns – concern on the Kenyan side not to lose iconic animals and photo-tourism revenue, and concern on the Tanzanian side not to lose trophy hunting revenue and undermine conservation.

Crucially, international pressure must not ignore the rights and needs of local people. Happily, I believe there are ways of resolving this impasse, if there is willingness on both sides.

I see two productive ways out of this conflict: a collaborative way and a compensatory way. Under the “collaborative way”, Amboseli elephant researchers would openly share data with hunters, so certain bulls from the largest “super-tusker” lineages could be agreed as being off limits, particularly if they are entering peak breeding age.
Rather than amping up international pressure, we should give local stakeholders space to discuss among themselves.

That means that five elephants could still be hunted, but that hunting would not target the most iconic animals and would be less likely to hinder the passing on of “super-tusker” genes. I think hunting companies would be open to this – indeed apparently the hunting operators concerned have already promised that none of the most famous Amboseli elephants such as “One-Ton”, “Craig” or “Esau” would be hunted, and that seems to be holding.

The other option would be a “compensatory way”, where those pushing bans recognise that stakeholders in Tanzania are hunting elephants for valuable revenue. They could calculate the full cost of an elephant hunt, and work with operators and communities to agree there would be no elephant hunting in a set zone – say, 30km from the border – but in return, those against hunts would pay the costs of elephant hunts that would otherwise have taken place there.

Imagine each hunt would have brought in $100,000, and five would have happened in that area annually without the agreement – people against hunts could contribute $500,000 annually, so hunts are avoided, land would be conserved, community and government revenue maintained, and activities such as anti-poaching and conflict mitigation still funded.

Given the millions of dollars raised by groups pushing bans, and the fact that 500,000 people have so far signed the Avaaz petition, surely those signatories could be convinced to contribute a dollar a year to avoid hunts and still benefit communities and people?

These ideas will doubtless have flaws, but at least start a discussion about what alternative options might look like. Photo-tourism simply isn’t a competitive replacement – it already fails to sufficiently fund most African protected areas, and why would photo-tourists come to Enduimet, say, with incredible landscapes such as Serengeti and Amboseli as direct, nearby competitors?

Unfortunately, ideology may prevent these plans working. It is already notable that despite me suggesting such options on social media, there has been zero constructive engagement from those pushing bans. I think they worry that working with hunters – as both models would require to some extent – would somehow compromise them.

There may also be greater willingness to shout and establish petitions than to actually help fund borderland Tanzanian hunting areas without elephant hunting. Both explanations are depressing, and I think betray the international public who are concerned about this topic, as well as the elephants and people most directly affected.

I truly think there can be a better way forward here. Rather than pushing a false binary of people having to be “pro” or “anti” trophy hunting, I’d love to see more recognition of the nuance and complexity of the topic, and critically, more suggestions for plans instead of just knee-jerk demands for bans.

And most importantly, I would love for this not to be about what Harvey or I think – conservation in Tanzania should primarily be about what Tanzanians think. Rather than amping up international pressure, we should give local stakeholders space to discuss among themselves, respect their decisions, and focus far more on listening rather than lecturing.

The benefits of that approach will, in the long term, extend not only to the “super-tuskers” but will enable more thoughtful, respectful conservation across these borders and far beyond. DM

Categories:

Tags: