Trophy hunters’ core argument for killing is laid to waste in a staggering new book

Cecil the lion lying in Hwange National Park
Tracy Keeling

To say trophy hunting is controversial would be a gross understatement. The question of whether the practice has any validity in an ecological sense has divided the conservation community. Indeed, it’s divided the global wildlife watchdog, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

There is one common argument made by pro-hunting figures in support of its existence: communities co-existing with trophy-hunted species benefit from the trade and therefore are incentivised to conserve them. Without hunting, this narrative goes, humans would have little reason to preserve space and living conditions for these other animals and would convert land to uses incompatible with their survival.

But in a new book, titled KILLING GAME: The Extinction Industry, members of such communities speak out. They share details of what benefits they get from the trophy hunting trade. Their accounts are a far stretch from what hunting supporters allege. In fact, they lay this central argument to waste.

Campfire

The book is by Eduardo Gonçalves, the founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH). It’s his second book in recent months that takes a deep dive into the trophy hunting industry and its effects on the world’s wildlife.

In KILLING GAME‘s later chapters, Gonçalves spotlights the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire) in Zimbabwe. As National Geographic previously explained, trophy hunting supporters “often cite” this programme as an example of how the practice can benefit communities and, in turn, wildlife. Indeed, an IUCN briefing paper by its Species Survival Commission – Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SSC SULi) holds the Campfire programme up as an example of how hunting can help communities. It claims Campfire “directly benefits” thousands of “rural Zimbabwean households”, providing “substantial amounts in countries where the average income for rural residents is a few dollars a day or less”.

In his book, Gonçalves described how the programme is supposed to work:

Its aim was to help villagers living around national parks and trophy hunting concessions [areas] benefit from the ‘exploitation’ of wildlife resources by foreign hunters. The revenues generated could in theory be used for a variety of projects, including building schools and clinics, improving roads, and setting up local business ventures. A bank account would be set up into which the money would be deposited, from which funds could then be withdrawn by the community.

Since its creation in 1986, Campfire has attracted millions in subsidies from US public funding. Gonçalves says “the UK government was also a major donor”.

“No money”

CBTH carried out surveys of communities and local officials in November 2019. A councillor for one ward in Hwange rural district council, Cosmas Mwakiposa, commented:

There is nothing that I can point to and say was built out of the proceeds of the CAMPFIRE. We know that there is plenty of money being made from hunting, we hear that from council administrative officials. But when we follow up, we find that there is nothing. No money.

Mwakipose said their own investigations suggested the funds were “being misappropriated and converted to uses we do not know of”. Likewise, local village headman Josias Mumpande claimed:

We are not getting any benefits by way of money or developments from the CAMPFIRE programme. We are not getting any benefits from trophy hunting although we see many animals being killed.

Mumpande concluded: “we do not want CAMPFIRE anymore in our ward because it is of no use”. Meanwhile, former member of Zimbabwe’s parliament Jealous Sansole alleged:

From my experience as MP, all 28 wards under Hwange Rural District Council have not received a cent from CAMPFIRE since the late 1980s.

Campfire isn’t the only programme that Gonçalves claims isn’t delivering benefits to communities either. He writes:

In Zambia, tribal chiefs have withdrawn their support from a similar scheme after complaining that funds from trophy hunting supposedly destined for local communities were failing to reach them. They say that local communities have received no fees from hunting concessions since 2016, despite promises that they would receive 20% of concession fees and 50% of hunting revenues.

Thin ice

As The Canary has previously detailed, the debate over trophy hunting is not a simple one. The fact that hunting advocacy groups have embedded themselves in global wildlife watchdogs – as Gonçalves highlighted in his previous book – muddies matters further.

This has largely led to a state of paralysis in policy change on trophy hunting on a national and international level, with some small exceptions. Such inertia is a hunter’s dream. Because, as Ranulph Fiennes says, it allows the killing to continue unabated. Meanwhile, trophy hunting advocacy groups are less than inert themselves, securing the downlisting of species’ protections – or fighting the uplisting of them – in a way that ensures hunting of them can continue, while in their positions of influence.

But a lot rests on the hunters’ argument that their actions help communities and, as such, conservation. It is key in the debate. That’s clear in the fact that, more often than not these days, hunting advocacy groups brand themselves as conservation organisations. Gonçalves’ book throws that argument into severe doubt, not only in terms of the financial benefits of hunting for communities, but in relation to the direct impact hunting is having on species’ potential survival.

In the book, Gonçalves notes a trophy hunter’s response to it on a forum called Accurate Reloading. The hunter said:

We are done. There is no way we can rationalize what we do to those who read this book. The game is about over.

That hunter may very well be right.

Featured image via Flickr – Daughter#3

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. There is an argument to be made in US and Canada, for example, that the human impact on wildlife affects it so much that it needs to be managed. Biologists may decide the deer population is unsustainable, and rather than having to cull them themselves, selling licences to hunters makes sense. But hunting deer is a far cry from wolves, grizzlies, elephants or fucking giraffes.

      I would double my subscription fee to Netflix if they made a non-gory show in which the lions, giraffes, black rhinos, elephants and leopards find revenge in the form of killing and maiming wealthy, half-wit hunters in a kind of festival of Darwinian justice. I would suggest the title, “Surprise!” Winners will be awarded a necklace of dentist teeth. This is my pitch. Let’s let jungle capitalism decide. What do you say, Netflix?

      1. It seems to me that the animal most in need of culling is the human, specifically the disproportionately wealthy in the developed world who prey on weaker communities for resources and cheap labour. Humans are the only creatures that hunt, kill and torture other creatures, including their own kind, for amusement. we have no natural predators, and the means to save and extend our own lives beyond what would be our natural lifespan through medicine and surgery. We are depleting natural resources to supply us with luxuries far beyond our needs.

      2. Why do you think that Africa is different to anywhere else? The human impact on wildlife in Africa is even greater than in the US.
        Where hunting is allowed and properly regulated in Southern Africa, all decisions on hunting quotas are made by scientists, animal experts, field managers, vets and others to ensure that every decision is made, based on fact and science, for the benefit of wildlife.
        A statement that trophy hunters are responsible for the decline in elephants and lions is simply a lie. Lions are being wiped out by human population expansion because they kill livestock or because people are eating the lions’ food, causing them to attack farm stock, so they are killed. Elephants are disappearing because of ivory poaching, nothing to do with trophy hunters.
        There are nine subspecies of giraffes. One of them, the southern giraffe is increasing in number (there are about 26,000) and farmers can raise as many as are needed, They will not become extinct because hunters want to hunt them, so farmers breed more and more. Hence – hunting encourages wildlife numbers.
        Elephants are not equally distributed. Some places have none (because corrupt governments and criminals killed them all), but in the southern range states there are probably 100,000 too many. That’s why regulated hunting is allowed. There is NO CHANCE they will become extinct, unless they eat themselves out of house and home and starve.
        If you were aware of the reality, you wouldn’t need your bizarre fantasy.

    2. Haha, Tracy. I have to admit, I am impressed. You and the wily tin shaker Goncalves certainly don’t let reality get in the way of a good story. I sure hope he tips you the occasional bung for doing his advertising.
      Great choice of example, Zimbabwe. A government that has turned corruption into a National pastime, stolen everything from everyone, killed the economy and wiped out the nation’s food production.
      Of course they stole the money, Tracy. The country is a bloody kleptocracy. Your argument falls on its arse because it admits that hunting DOES produce money for the locals, but the wrong locals steal it. That does not disprove the fact that hunting is beneficial. Without hunting, there wouldn’t be any money to steal, because you forgot to add that the same crooks steal the eco-tourist income, any grants and food-aid, too. The same nepotist crooks also sit on the councils that control land and money, and give any good land to their relatives and supporters so there are no alternatives. The locals are eating the wildlife to survive.
      Your out of context quotation was correct – there is no way that the hunting community can rationalise what they do to you people because you are totally irrational.
      You whip up people’s emotions, but their emotion is about them, not the wildlife. Banning hunting would be a death sentence for Africa’s wildlife outside the parks, and before long, because of human population expansion, it will all be owned by someone.
      Strange you forgot to mention South Africa, where hunting income has produced forty million acres of land filled with wildlife where there was none before, supporting 100,000 jobs, or Namibia, where wildlife numbers are soaring thanks to the wildlife utilisation similar to CAMPFIRE.
      Without corruption, CAMPFIRE would be a roaring success, too.
      Give my regards to la-la land……

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.