I was wrong: trophy hunting
I'm releasing a series of articles entitled "I was wrong..." about topics that I have pondered and changed my perspective on over the past few years. The first is on the topic of trophy hunting.
I desire to normalize and prioritize leadership that admits publicly “I was wrong…” To do that, I have spent a few months mindful of all the beliefs or perspectives I have had in the past few years where I have noticeably changed my perspective.
My attempt to publicly share my thought process on certain issues does not mean that I now believe myself to be right or correct per se.
When people are thinking critically for themselves, perspectives on any spectrum are defending an underlying value. Differences of opinion are generally differences in prioritizing the underlying value.
For example, in the issue of Covid-19 vaccinations, an entire cohort of people believe strongly that everyone should be vaccinated because they hold the value that the community/collective safety is more important than the individual. The non-vaccine perspective holds that personal freedom is more important than coercion. Both are beautiful when distilled into their respective values. Some people simply hold one value with greater priority than the other.
My first essay on the subject focuses on a topic I’ve explored deeply over the past 5 years: hunting. In particular, the often derided “trophy hunting” of elephants, lions, leopards, giraffes and other charismatic animals especially on the African continent.
I often have people who share with me that I “do hunting right” and that the trophy hunting that happens in Africa is “disgusting, repugnant” etc. Examples people refer to includes the killing of Cecil the lion. Broadly, trophy hunting is viewed negatively even at the highest levels of U.S. government as evidenced by Obama-era bans on importing certain trophies.
For a long time, I viewed trophy hunting with a similar perspective. I was wrong.
It is clear to me that although far from perfect, and definitely not the world I desire to live in, trophy hunting is one of the most effective wildlife management and restoration tools to bring conservation money into areas around the world. Trophy hunting is clearly helping to increase populations of certain rare species, such as lions and leopards.
Below I’ll detail how I came to this new conclusion.
A More Beautiful World
I desire a world where humanity prioritizes the flourishing of charismatic species, such as lions and leopards, where human wellbeing is not sacrificed for environmental goals, and where conflict between wild animals is met with restraint, love, and care. I desire a world where we view all life as sacred and prioritize resources for that purpose.
In Charles Eisenstein’s The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible, he reminds me of the importance of holding a vision for a world that has more harmony, more connection, and a more virtuous way of relating to the Earth.
Ideally, humanity can manifest the consciousness change that allows us to prioritize and value all living things inherently in the philosophical tradition of John Muir.
It is important to hold this reality in my heart, a seed of what is possible no matter how far away our consciousness may be as a species. But that is not the reality we are currently inhabiting and a pragmatic understanding of what is happening must be part of the discussion.
I believe both sides must learn to bridge perspectives. Trophy hunters who are purely pragmatic would benefit from opening their hearts to a world of possibility where it’s no longer necessary to kill large, charismatic animals.
Anti-trophy hunters who are purely moralistic must be able to recognize the pragmatism of a model that has worked to support wildlife and preservation of wild places.
What Did Our Ancestors Do?
Just because pre-modern man behaved a certain way does not make it right (naturalistic fallacy). But my informal education with many indigenous cultures and mentors provides me a template for viewing and understanding the world. It also provides me a perspective, which I believe holds great value in this particular debate.
Our ancestors related to large, charismatic animals in various ways. Many people hold animals, especially predators, in great reverence and therefore do not harm them.
When I visited Far East Russia to track Siberian tigers, I met with the indigenous Udege people who viewed the animals as a god. They desired to share space with the tiger and did not hunt it for any reason. In fact, killing the Siberian tiger was extremely taboo in their culture.
However, groups in the Americas often took a different approach. The Maya believed the jaguar was “godly but not God”. The priests and highest warriors would hunt jaguars and adorn themselves in jaguar parts like pelts, claws, and skulls. It was a form of trophy hunting in their own way.
(It should be noted that the Maya were a more settled civilization than the Udege, which suggests that the further one gets from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the more willingness there is to kill large, charismatic animals for non-food purposes.)
But even in their differences, both the Udege and the Maya considered these large charismatic animals to be sacred. They both wanted them to exist, revered them for their power, and had specific rituals around the relationship to these animals.
Trophy Hunting Today: What’s the Motivation?
Hunting for food makes sense to me. All meat eaters who reflect on the fact that animals die for them to eat, will find truth in hunting for one’s own food. In fact, many vegetarians and vegans also see the value in this practice.
Hunting animals that are food, such as deer and elk, but prioritizing large males (i.e: “big bucks”, “monster bucks”, “huge rack” etc) also makes some sense to me. In theory, a large male who is past its best reproductive years has already passed on its DNA to successive generations. He is bigger and yields more meat. He is also a male, which can be more challenging and does not negatively affect populations of the species compared to females.
But the exorbitant amount of money people often spend on hunting large males (sometimes in excess of $30,000 per animal up to $100,000 for a group hunting trophy bucks/bulls) speaks to something deeper. I’ll address the pragmatic nature of where this money goes, but it’s important to reflect on the internal motivation for doing such a thing.
I imagine and can feel, a large part of the motivation is egoic and unconscious in nature. A hunter covets a large set of antlers, a record animal weight, or something that bolsters one’s self-image. This is the shadow of the hunting world and, like most shadow that exists in our society, few people want to look at this closely or take responsibility for it.
This is the same shadow that I believe finds its way into hunting for large, charismatic animals that are not considered typical prey. Examples in this category include things like African lions and leopards. Although it is possible to eat wild felid meat (such as bobcat, mountain lion, African lion, Siberian tiger), few if any people who kill them are doing it for that reason.
My initial relationship to trophy hunting saw and felt all of the shadowy motivations I’ve described. Where I was wrong, was the impact that this type of behavior was providing for the land. Even with motivations that do not seem in alignment with my own, there are systems in place to use this impulse for good.
With this caveat in mind, let’s review the new information that helped me realize I was wrong.
Instead of Trophy Hunting…
There are a few major arguments against trophy hunting and some have merit while others do not. From a pragmatic perspective, the most oft-cited arguments do not seem to hold much water in my research.
Photo Safaris vs Hunting
An often-cited criticism of trophy hunting is that photo safaris can replace the economic benefits of these animals in a non-lethal way. In theory, this has merit, but in practice there are some glaring problems with this approach.
One issue is that per person, trophy hunters generally bring in significantly more revenue than photo safaris. In one study in Namibia, a total of 77 safari photographers were required to bring the same economic impact as 1 hunter.
Not only is that more challenging to accomplish, it also has an enormous carbon and environmental footprint. Imagining that most photo safari goers are coming from the United States and Europe, the flight emissions alone are substantial.
On top of that, there is the need for more accommodations and generally more luxurious ones. Hunters notably require few amenities compared to photo safaris according to many land stewards who have both available.
Another major issue is that the land itself cannot always handle photo safaris. For example, in the Zambezi delta of Mozambique, land is flooded for 6 months out of the year. Due to their geography, the exclusively photo-safari route is not an option for them. If they did not have hunting, there would be zero incentive to keep the land wild as it is. I’ll describe later why this is so important (even for the animals that are hunted there).
Here is a visual example of tourist + hunting revenues in Namibia on the left versus what happens to revenues (and thus conservation dollars) when hunting was removed from the equation (on the right).
Finally, there is a major philosophical question that requires asking: what is a wild animal?
In locations where hunting is prohibited due to photo safaris, the wild animals behave differently and become habituated to human presence. A couple friends recently visited Boyd Varty’s Londolozi reserve** and sent me close-up pictures of lions and leopards. No fear. She shared that there have been 8 generations of these cats accustomed to humans. I’ve heard of examples where the lions and leopards use safari vehicles as cover when they are hunting.
While it is a great show of adaptability, it does beckon a greater question about the relationship we desire to have with animals. Obviously, a zoo animal is one far end of the spectrum that many people have a hard time stomaching. However, there is a sense that habituating animals to humans and photo safaris is akin to creating a much larger and grander zoo-type experience.
At least in practice, it does not seem like a good idea to ban or limit trophy hunting in favor of photo safaris. They can both be great, sustainable sources of revenue that support the preservation of wild ecosystems.
Non-Profits to the Rescue
Another argument is that non-profit organizations can fill in the financial gaps that bans in hunting creates. In an ideal world, this may work, but it is not where we are currently.
Firstly, there are many non-profits that do great work. Panthera is one such organization that has projects all over the world, does great research, and is protecting wild cat populations. Mark Elbroch, one of the preeminent cougar biologists, is an avid cat protector and lover. In his pragmatism, he also sees hunting as a tool for conservation (albeit an often overused one).
However, many non-profit organizations are what one African land partner calls “fear factories.” They maintain large overhead, bureaucracy, and they are essentially “selling hope”. They rarely have the ability to perform the action that the public desires them to achieve.
Banning the Wildlife Trade
If we can’t stop them from trophy hunting, we’ll stop them from bringing their trophies back home. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Polar bears are beautiful animals. They evoke wonder to see an animal so white, so gorgeous, and yet so deadly. They are enormous and they are dying as a species.
The United States listed polar bears on the Endangered Species Act, which meant U.S. based hunters could not bring back animal parts.
Firstly, this directly hurt indigenous communities in Canada, who are permitted to hunt limited numbers of polar bears for subsistence purposes. They could no longer sell byproducts of the hunts to American consumers.
Even if you say “to hell with indigenous communities. Polar bears are more important.” (which is not a belief I hold), there is clear evidence that banning the trade of wildlife products does harm those endangered populations.
In the example of the polar bear, indigenous communities no longer saw the economic value of preserving polar bears for foreign hunters. Thus, they had less patience to deal with a dangerous predator in their midst, which made them more likely to have violent bear conflicts. Without a financial reason to protect polar bears, they did what humans do across the globe – exterminate competition.
I empathize with what is happening when someone wants to ban the wildlife trade. Imagine an animal that is so beautiful, has so much mythic awe to offer humans, and yet is dying out due to our behavior as a species. Now imagine how uncomfortable it would feel if the few remaining animals end up skinned and displayed in a wealthy person’s home. It evokes anger and resentment, which I understand.
But that’s not the basis from which we need to make decisions. It’s simply an emotion that must be processed (like grief or sadness).
According to biologist Diana Weber, the Endangered Species Act specifically forbade official acknowledgement that greenhouse gas emissions were harming the polar bear as a species. It is much easier (and lazier) to place the blame on trophy hunting instead of the more complex array of problems that actually exist. One article I read sums it up best:
“But what is clearly unreasonable is to use trade bans as a cudgel for conserving species threatened by climate change or habitat loss in place of doing the much harder work of mitigating those threats directly.”
Zambezi Delta: A Case Study in Ecosystem Health
A case study in Modern Huntsman and Byron Pace’s accompanying podcasts (episode 1, episode 2, episode 3) helped push me over the edge into realizing that I was wrong about trophy hunting and needed to reevaluate my position.
Between the late 1970s-early 1990s, the Mozambique Civil War reduced wildlife populations throughout the country. When Mark Haldane took over 1200 square miles and half a million acres after the war, he knew one of the only ways to bring back the animals into protected habitat was through any tool he had at his disposal – including trophy hunting.
He manages a hunting concession (land set aside by the government for the purpose of hunting) called Zambeze Delta Safaris, where he and his team have been responsible for overseeing one of the greatest revitalization projects I’ve ever seen. Animals were nearly extirpated from the land in the 1990s and it has since seen a 3,000% increase. Today his concession has the highest density of non-migratory animals on the planet.
Providing prey animals like cape buffalo, impala, and zebra with adequate space to grow their populations is one thing. It’s great to maintain habitat for these kinds of wild animals and there are stories where photo safaris have been able to create that impact.
But that’s not all they’ve done.
Dan Cabela and the Cabela Family Foundation (yes, named for the popular hunting/fishing store Cabelas) spearheaded efforts to reintroduce apex predators onto the landscape to fully rewild this pristine habitat.
In 2019, there were 24 lions taken from other areas of Africa (where they were either a nuisance or under threat of being killed) and reintroduced into the Zambezi delta. Today there are nearly 90 lions. If the lions continue to expand throughout the range, this introduction will account for an increase in the total wild lion population worldwide by 10%.
As of 2021, the same project introduced 12 cheetahs. If they proliferate and survive their new habitat, it will increase the wild cheetah range by 33%.
Eventually, the lions will be hunted. Trophy hunters will pay to come and hunt them. There is a certain sadness in that for me, I won’t lie. Lions are social creatures. But if Mark Haldane, the biologists, and conservationists focus on taking “problem”, sick, or old lions and money continues to flow into the hunting concession, it will be for the greater good.
Hunting on that land currently funds anti-poaching teams and food deliveries to the local populace who live there. The local communities have been enrolled to end poaching in the area, which they do relatively well. If poachers come from certain communities, those communities lose their food privileges. It is a unique web of incentives that is currently allowing the ecosystem to thrive more than it has in hundreds of years.
But if the animals who were in this concession had no value, they wouldn’t be protected. According to Haldane, the area is flooded 6 months out of the year making photo safaris an inefficient (and impossible) way of funding land preservation. By keeping big game trophy hunting on the table, he is keeping these animals safe.
Is Trophy Hunting the Answer?
In the current paradigm of financial incentives, trophy hunting for charismatic animals like lions, leopards, giraffes, and elephants does make sense. And when done correctly using “sustainable take” methodologies, is clearly a net positive for ecosystems and their diversity.
I don’t know what percentage of trophy hunting operations in Africa are done “correctly”. I am sure there is corruption where the large influx of money that comes in from foreign hunters is pocketed by officials in power. This is an open-ended question for me I’d love more clarity on. Because holding up a few shining examples of trophy hunting, which represents a minority doesn’t feel right either.
But simply because it is currently a good tool for conservation doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways and truths we can step into as a species.
As the founder of Sacred Hunting, I have a bias toward saying:
Bring back the ritual. Bring back the spiritual elements of the hunting experience. If we are going to continue to trophy hunt, bring back the world where humans do kill these amazing animals, but with the utmost reverence.
That means keep the “grip n’ grin” at home. That means really taking the time to honor and care for that animal. Treat the hunt as our ancestors did – undertaking a ritual connection to connect with a higher power.
Trophy hunting is NOT the only way to save these animals. It is an imperfect solution that happens to be one of the greatest tools we now have. But let us not snuff out the possibility that we can grow into a new collective consciousness in the future.
Because as soon as the land where these animals become more valuable for something else (like mining), the financial incentive that motivates trophy hunting no longer matters.
And when that happens, we lose these animals.
I have come around to the reality that trophy hunting is currently a pragmatic tool to preserve these animals. I hope others who share my sensibilities and sentiments feel the same way despite the questionable morality that many trophy hunters display.
But I also hope hunters and supporters of trophy hunting can see an opportunity to hold in their hearts a more beautiful world in the future.
Footnote:
** I believe Boyd Varty is a great storyteller and has a great operation that shares deep wisdom with many people. His form of sharing consciousness makes his experiences about far more than “photo safaris” alone and he can charge much higher rates as a result. From both a spiritual and financial perspective, I do consider his work in a class of its own regardless of my philosophical question “what is a wild animal?”
Great read, Thanks for this