Can the killing of an endangered animal help save the species?  Through the implementation of trophy hunting, countries in Africa are beginning to save the endangered animal species such as white rhinos, tigers, and black rhinos.  This method of conservation may seem illogical to some, but it could be our last hope to save the endangered species in Africa.  Conservationists and hunters have argued this question for years now, and even today as the fight for trophy hunting continues.  Trophy hunting is the practice which consists of the selling of the right to kill one animal, so the revenue from that hunt could be used to help protect the remaining members of that species.  Trophy hunting in Africa is the answer to the growing number of endangered animals there.  

To understand this topic, it is important that all readers first know what trophy hunting in Africa entails.  Trophy hunting in Africa consists of the bidding for the right to kill an animal, which usually brings large revenues.  For example, “a Texas hunter, went to Namibia this year to kill a black rhino.  He had won the right to do so by bidding $350,000” (Melvin).  This money would later be used to protect the remaining black rhinos in the area.  Another important aspect in trophy hunting in Africa is that the animals targeted are not healthy to the population.  This can be seen in the case of the Texas man’s hunt, in which he targeted “an aging bull who was beyond his reproductive years and who posed a threat to younger rhinos” (Melvin).  This elimination of “problem” animals helps to protect the population from itself, as well as from poachers through the revenue it generates.  

Africa is not the only place where hunting is used to protect animals.  Many countries use hunting as a means to regulate as well as protect the animals that live in the country.  America is a prime example of this, where hunting is the primary source of protection for the animals that many Americans see on a daily basis like ducks, deer, turkey, and bears.  In the early 1900s, America faced a similar situation as Africa, with many animals facing extinction, this included whitetail deer with a population of around “500,000”, and wild turkey, with a population of about “100,000” (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation).  Thanks to the taxes on equipment, and tags purchased by hunters which helped to regulate the amount of animals killed, these populations are now “32 million” and “7 million” (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation) respectively.  In Fact, hunters in America contribute more to conservation than than anyone else, about “1.6 billion per year” (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation).  This shows that hunting can help to raise revenue to help protect animals that face extinction, and the same results could be expected if trophy hunting is implemented in Africa.  

Another important factor in the idea of trophy hunting in Africa, is what creates the need for trophy hunting.  While it may seem logical to place hunting as the main cause for the declining population of any species in Africa, it is actually commonly accepted that the real cause of the endangered species in Africa is poaching.  Poaching is the illegal killing of an animal for a specific purpose, usually for one part of the animal, which leaves a lot of the animal behind to be wasted.   For example, when poachers kill a rhino, they would only keep the horn.  Poaching is what many people believe to be the cause of the near extinction of many of the African big game species like lions, rhinos, etc.  Poaching in Africa, is difficult to police just due to how uninhabited the areas are.  For example, “Botswana is about the size of Texas, and has a population of 30,000, which is about the same number of people employed at JFK airport” (Legarth).  This is why conservation hunting is needed to produce revenue in Africa.  The revenue generated through trophy hunting can later be used to help fund the wildlife officers of each specific country.   These wildlife officers can then monitor the land of Africa, and look for poachers who are illegally hunting the animals.  

Poaching is “funded” by the demand for African animal parts to be used in Eastern medicine.  For example, Richard Ellis describes how the Chinese believe that rhino horns contain some spiritual benefit, “meaning that a liquid drunk from a rhino-horn cup came to be seen as healthier than, say, a liquid drunk from a ceramic vessel” (Ellis76).  This unscientific belief that somehow drinking any liquid from a rhino horn had instant health benefits is one of the factors that helped to grow the demand for poaching in Africa.  The demand for rhino horns is not limited to the drinking cup either as Ellis writes, “the horns, dried and powdered, were (and still are) believed by the Chinese to be a “cold drug,” a preventative against hot ailments, such as poisons and fevers” (Ellis77).  This large demand has helped lead to the near extinction of white and black rhinos in Africa, and now the help of trophy hunters is needed to help save the species.  

Trophy hunting in Africa shows results, as many countries have already implemented it into their activities. These results can be seen in south Africa, where the population of white

It is important to identify each side of the argument before diving deeper into them.  There are two sides to the conservation hunting argument, and each are emotionally attached.  On one side, is the hunters, who believe that through trophy hunting in Africa, can save the endangered species that are located in Africa.  This side is challenged by the animal rights groups, who argue that it is wrong to kill any animal, especially one that is endangered.  Both sides have reasons they believe they are right, as well as why the other is wrong.  

One major benefit of conservation hunting to African countries are the revenues it produces.  These revenues are massive amounts of money that can be used to protect the endangered species in Africa.  For example, “Namibia generated 11 million US dollars in one year” (Conservation Magazine).  This revenue can then be used to protect an animal from being poached.  This revenue is often the number one source of income in that country.  In some countries like Namibia the money is even given directly back to the landowners who “rent” out their land for hunters.  This gives the landowner an incentive to allow animals to live on the property despite the crop destroying and sometimes death of farm animals that results from the animals.  This also serves as an incentive to keep poachers off the property, as the poacher now serves a direct threat to the landowner and his ability to turn a profit off of trophy hunting.  

One major argument against trophy hunting is that trophy hunting may act as a cover for poachers.  Elliot Morley noted this saying, “Opening up even a limited legal trade creates a smokescreen for poachers which is almost impossible to police” (Morley).  This argument suggests that poachers either use the ability to shoot without being questioned, because they would be suspected of being on a trophy hunt, or create fake hunts to fill their own needs.  This argument notes the fact that it is hard to police things in Africa because of its sheer size, and this is made even more difficult by the fact that the hunts take place in the more rural parts of Africa.  This argument is hard to dispute, but this should encourage the idea of trophy hunting which creates revenues that can later be used to police poaching more effectively.  With wildlife officers to police an area, and ask for tags for an animal, which poachers would not possess.  Similar to how game wardens in America act, this would help to eliminate poaching in Africa.   

Another major problem in the conservation hunting battle is that it is not always clear whether or not the revenues generated from a hunt are allocated to protect the endangered species in Africa, or if they are put back into the local economy.   This has a lot to do with the hunter’s personal preference, as they can choose to hunt in an area where the money is guaranteed to be put back into the local economy.  Conservation magazine noted this, and after interviewing 150 people who had either hunted in Africa, or planned to in the next three years, they found that 86 percent of the people would hunt in an area in which they knew that the revenues they generated while in the country would be put back into the local economy.  This helps to promote a community of responsible hunters, who would much rather see that the species would continue to thrive so others could enjoy it in the future.  This helps to keep the populations of animals rising instead of declining like when trophy hunting is not allowed.  

One question that is commonly raised in the trophy hunting conservation is how can the killing of one animal possibly lead to an increase in the remaining population of the animal species.  This may seem hard to believe at first, but there is already plenty of evidence that trophy hunting can help increase the population of animals in Africa.  For example, conservation magazine wrote an article about trophy hunting in south Africa.  The article shows that after hunting of the white rhino was legalized, “the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies” (Conservation).  This spike in white rhinos after the legalization of hunting in the area shows that the revenues from hunting purchases can be used to help the overall population of the animals.  This is not the only animal that has seen the benefits of hunting in Africa, as we can see it with the elephants in Botswana.  This can be seen in a comparison between Kenya, where hunting was banned in 1977, and Botswana where hunting was allowed, as noted by Terry Anderson who said, “The Kenyan elephant population fell precipitously between 1973 and 2013 while the Botswanan elephant population skyrocketed” (Anderson). This disparity between a country that allowed hunting and one that didn’t shows that hunting is in fact beneficial to the populations in Africa.  

Trophy hunting not only helps the animals through the revenues it produces, but it also acts as an incentive to the land owners of the countries to allow the animals on their property.  Mikkel Legarth noted this in his Ted talk, “How the ban on lion hunting killed the lions”, in which he talks about Botswana’s commercial hunting ban.  The area of Botswana he is talking about is located around the Central Kalahari game reserve, and is used for commercial cattle farming.  The game reserve does not allow hunting; however, the commercial farming area does.  In the days of commercial hunting, the farmers would allow the lions to roam on their property because they could allow commercial hunts to take place on their property, which would give them a large sum of money for allowing a hunt to take place.  This all changed in 2000, when Botswana banned commercial hunting.   It should be noted that this law still allowed the land owners to kill animals that they deemed a threat to their business.  Now, with no incentive for the farmers to put up with the lions on their property, they began to kill the lions to protect their herd.  To relate this to an everyday situation, if a business owner constantly had a thief in his store stealing merchandise (lions killing cows), he would want them caught (farmer hunting lions).   With the farmers now killing more lions than ever, the lion population in Botswana grew lower than ever, and is still on the fall today.   This decline in the lion population is made worse by the fact that lions are territorial animals.  Mikkel talked about this to, as he explained how as the lions in the outer ring (farming area) are killed, the ones from the inner ring (game reserve) move into their old territory.  This makes it so the cycle of lions being killed is seemingly never ending.  This decrease in the population of lions after trophy hunting was banned shows that the benefits of having trophy hunting out ways the consequences of not having it, both with the decrease of revenue for the local areas to fight poaching, and it eliminates the incentive for farmers to allow animals to live on their property. 

The situation with land owners is an answer to the question which is commonly raised by those against trophy hunting, which is that the trophy hunting of lions is more harmful to the lion population than beneficial.  This is mentioned by Alexis Croswell, a writer for One Green Planet, “when an adult male lion is killed, the destabilization of that lion’s pride can lead to more lion deaths as outside males compete to take over the pride”(Croswell).  This argument only notes the lions killed in remote areas, and not those killed by farmers who are not subject to trophy hunting restrictions.  The argument presented by many anti trophy hunters that members of lion prides will kill one another while fighting for the position of the killed male lion is trumped by the fact that farmers kill many of these lions anyway each year without the incentive of trophy hunting to allow trophy hunting on their land.  The number of lions killed in a fight for the position of a former dominant lion is miniscule compared to the number that is killed by farmers in an attempt to save their profits.  This number of lions killed in the inner fighting also carries less of an impact than the lions killed by the farmers, as the lions killed by the farmers are coming from a game reserve where they once would have been protected, but now they are moving outward in an attempt to gain new territory.  Ending this would require a ban on the hunting of lions altogether, which would lead to the destruction of the African beef industry, which is both a leader in the world beef industry, and in the revenue generated in Africa, specifically in the more rural areas of Botswana.  The point that trophy hunting is more harmful to lion populations than the initial killing of the lions shows, can be made inconclusive by the fact that without trophy hunting, farmers would kill a much higher number of lions than trophy hunting’s initial effect and its lasting affect created by the new need for an alpha male.  

One of the problems for those who support trophy hunting as a conservation tool, and for those who partake in trophy hunting is the actions of a few ruining it for the rest of the hunters.  Peter Lindsey wrote about this ruining of trophy hunting.  In his article, Lindsey talks about how a few hunters who act out of hand by “shooting from vehicles; shooting young or uncommon animals; luring animals from a park; use of bait, spotlights, and hounds; canned hunting” (Lindsey) put a damper on the trophy hunting effort.  By saying this, Lindsey is trying to show how public opinion for trophy hunting drops when some “cheat” to kill the animals they wish too.  This bad public opinion is what leads to the end of commercial hunting in some areas, which leads to problems like the ones mentioned previously.  It is clear that trophy hunting is not a perfect answer, but its effectiveness is hard to judge due to the poor actions of a few who partake in the activity.  

In conclusion, trophy hunting is regarded by many as an effective means of conservation.  This is countered by the unacceptable actions of a limited number of those who partake in trophy hunting.  Trophy hunting is not the perfect answer to the rapid endangerment of many African big game species, but it is one of the most effective.  It should be noted that the biggest danger for the big game species of Africa is not legal hunting, but poaching.  Poaching is hard to regulate, but can be regulated through the revenues produced by trophy hunting.  Through the successes of trophy hunting that can already be seen, it should be accepted that trophy hunting in Africa is an effective means of conservation.  Trophy hunting act as an effective means to fight poaching, as well as encourage farmers to accept the presence of lions, and other African animals on their land.  Trophy hunting is not the only solution to save the endangered animals in Africa, but as of right now, trophy hunting is the most effective means available to fund wildlife officials in Africa which will stop poaching.
