Trophy Hunting

However, lion conservation only is successful when it provides incentives for locals. At this point in time locals are only concerned with protecting their crops, they believe there is little benefit to protecting the lions. In fact, John Adams, author of the article tilted Killing in the Name of Conservation – Can Trophy Hunting Help Save Africa’s Wild? Sheds information on conservation. He informs his readers that, “Many conservancies allow trophy hunting because it is far easier to get a hunting concession running than to build the lodges and other infrastructure needed for photo safaris” (Adams). Supporters of Trophy hunting will suggest that the revenue from the practice helps the local communities. Jeff Flocken of National Geographic

This would mean that even if trophy hunting did help local economies as supporters of trophy hunting suggest it does not do so in a proportionate way. In agreement with Flocken is Dr. Peter Katt, who has studied trophy hunting in Africa. Kat proclaims that the revenue generated from hunting actual pales in comparison to the amount of revenue made from tourist who seek to simply see the wildlife. This is contrary to many supporters’ claims of trophy hunting who believe the “$200 million” trophy industry is actually economically beneficially to countries. Kat cites a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)study of African countries and trophy hunting. According to the study, “On average in the 11 countries [that allow trophy hunting], 14.9% of the land area has been set aside for hunting, and the average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate poverty and hunger”

This claim is also likely overly stated. David Youldon, leader of a conservative group lectures to those whom will listen that, “no existing lion population needs culling. The only potential benefit from hunting could come as revenue for land preservation and local communities—but this isn’t happening” (Bland). The general act of hunting does indeed pursue conservation goals, but the lack of regulation involved, does not benefit the hunted species nor the local African communities. There are better alternatives to hunting for conservatist measures. For example, Craig Packer, a leading researcher on lions suggests in John Adam’s article that, “Fenced reserves are cheaper and more effective at conserving lions;” (Adams). Adams has also commented on some of Packers findings and informs his readers that, “Packer and his colleagues found [in a study] that the intensity of trophy hunting was the factor most responsible for lion declines (Adams). Still, supporters of trophy hunting may argue that hunting large animals, especially lions, protects local communities from terror. This too is an exaggerated point of view. In fact, Nzou, a native of Zimbabwe himself concedes that, “The killing of [a lion doesn’t'] garner much sympathy from urban Zimbabweans. Few have ever seen a lion” (Nzou). Despite the media seeming to emphasize that Africa is