Trophy Hunting - Opposition

Opposition

In the 1970s and 1980s, people in many Western countries assumed a pejorative association regarding hunting for trophy.

Many of the 189 countries signatory to the 1992 Rio Accord have developed biodiversity action plans that discourage the hunting of protected species.

The League Against Cruel Sports has produced a report alleging trophy hunting does not have a positive effect on conservation. They suggest ecotourism can earn local communities as much as 15 times the amount of money earned by livestock, game-rearing or overseas hunting. Ecotourism increases the number of jobs and lengthens the time wildlife exists as an economic resource.

Trophy hunting opponents also cite the genetic health of species because hunters often try to kill large, healthy individuals instead of smaller, unhealthy and/or unattractive individuals. This indicates the animals that would pass on evolutionary-beneficial genes to their offspring are, in fact, the ones that become less likely to reproduce. Proponents of trophy hunting claim many hunting fees go toward conservation, such as portions of hunting license fees, hunting tags and ammunition taxes. In addition, private groups, such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which contributed more than $400,000 in 2005, and smaller private groups also contribute significant funds; for example, the Grand Slam Club Ovis has raised more than $2.8 million to date for the conservation of sheep.

Recent studies demonstrate that trophy hunting of lions is now the single largest contributor to the decline of the lion population on the African continent.