Citing personal reasons, a 23-year-old contestant voluntarily withdrew himself from the ITV2 reality television show Love Island, after less than three days, on January 15 2020. Closely linked to his abrupt departure was the fact that he had filmed himself with three dead animals which he had shot, along with clients, in Africa- including a warthog, a water buffalo and a giant eland (a vulnerable species of antelope)- and then posted the images on Instagram. The resulting public outrage led to a petition, signed by 35,000 people, calling for his removal from the programme, as well as 570 complaints to the communications regulator Ofcom. Yet Ollie Campbell, who is a director of the Cornish Sporting Agency-a provider of hunting trips to southern Africa, as well as bird shoots and deer stalking elsewhere-had not actually done anything illegal.
Whatever the ethical and moral issues raised by the killing of defenceless animals by well-heeled and well-armed people, using either guns or bows and arrows, trophy hunting is in fact a well-established mode of recreation and “sport” for the moneyed and privileged classes in many countries around the world. Wild animals, mostly big game, are shot, usually under government licence, so that the hunter can keep, and frequently put on display, the taxidermied animal (or its head) or other body parts (such as horns, antlers, tusks and skins) for whatever reason. Indeed, many might have encountered trophies of animal heads while visiting country manor houses, private clubs and rural pubs, among other places. When legal trophy hunts are embarked upon in foreign countries, it is indeed permissible to bring these trophies back home, guided by “harvest quotas” that have been previously approved by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Trophy hunting is an offshoot of big game hunting, which has been around for a long time and has frequently had a significant impact on local animal populations. For example, during the British Raj, the shikar, or the organised hunting of wild animals, led to a substantial reduction in the numbers of tigers, since reversed by the protection afforded from 1973 onwards by Project Tiger. There are many photographs from that era that show various hunters, including kings, princes, and British military and civilian officials, posing proudly in front of tigers, lions and other animals they had just killed. Hunting also featured prominently in the British upper-class social calendar, and it is still legal to stalk and kill deer and stags in the UK for the purpose of acquiring trophies.
How do hunters and hunting companies justify trophy hunting? For a start, they point to the wider benefits to both wildlife conservation and to the economic growth of local communities. This means that trophy hunters can simultaneously brand themselves as conservationists. The selective culling of sick and injured animals, in particular, may facilitate population control in many species of wildlife. Apparently, shooting and killing animals is much more lucrative than merely looking at and photographing them in big game reserves and on safari tours. According to this viewpoint, sustainable conservation activities can only be adequately funded through the large revenues generated by big game hunting. Thereby, “sustainable” trophy hunting equates with species conservation. Furthermore, big game hunting is supposed to create local employment and to help develop the infrastructure in local, often impoverished, communities.
While trophy hunting remains a legal activity in certain circumstances, depending on the species of the hunted animal, the country in which the hunt takes place, and the weapons used during the kill, there is considerable variation in the acceptance of this practice worldwide. While Kenya banned all trophy hunting in 1977, South Africa remains a haven for big game hunting, not even sparing the ‘Big Five’ (elephant, lion, leopard, rhinoceros and Cape buffalo) of safari animals. As a result, the country has become the world’s largest exporter of animal trophies.
Trophy hunting is big business. To cash in on the financial opportunities, canned hunting has been introduced. This allows even relatively poor shooters to easily kill captive animals, specially reared for the purpose, within small enclosures from which it is impossible to escape. Most trophy hunters are Americans, which is unsurprising given the ready availability of guns and the popularity of recreational hunting in that country. One example of trophy hunting that recently generated considerable negative publicity was the killing of Cecil, an African lion, by Dr Walter Palmer, a Minneapolis dentist, in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park in June 2015. Despite widespread public criticism, he was not actually charged by the government of Zimbabwe, given that this was a “legal” shoot. Other high-profile cases include that of Brittany Longoria, an American member of Safari Club International, who killed a male leopard in Namibia in September 2018, in the process demonstrating that this is not just an activity particularly favoured by testosterone-driven males.
There is, however, considerable opposition to trophy hunting, not just from animal-rights activists but from the wider general public as well. Far from encouraging conservation, trophy hunts may actually be threatening some endangered services. It has been claimed that most of the proceeds of this activity end up in the pockets of hunting companies and of corrupt local officials and politicians. According to one estimate, only 3 per cent of profits are ploughed back into the local economy and into government agencies responsible for conservation. The practice itself is often cruel, as a lack of expertise in shooting may lead to multiple attempts and a long chase before the exhausted and terror-stricken animal is eventually killed. Also, the practice of triumphantly posing for photographs with killed animals is particularly offensive to many.
As long as trophy hunting remains a legal activity, continues to generate large revenues, has many wealthy and powerful backers, and is supported by certain governments, it is likely to continue unabated. Only hardening public attitudes, adequate funding and support for wildlife conservation by other means, and a strong political will are likely to have any impact, one way or the other, on this particular form of privileged recreational activity.
Ashis Banerjee