“Ethical arguments against trophy hunting do not affect the scientific assessment of trophy hunting's value as a conservation tool.”

Trophy hunting is often a contentious activity, with people supporting or opposing it on a variety of biological, economic, ideological or cultural bases. This document is focused solely on the relevance of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods.

Several ethical concerns are associated with trophy hunting, and these issues add to the debate on whether the practice is beneficial to conservation.

Trophy hunting is often a contentious activity, with people supporting or opposing it on a variety of biological, economic, ideological or cultural bases. This document is focused solely on the relevance of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods.

But more importantly, the consequentialist argument misses the core concern we seek to raise, namely, that collecting bodies or body parts as “trophies” is an ethically inappropriate way to interact with individual animals, regardless of the beneficial outcomes that do or do not follow.

Arguments that promote successful case studies of conservation, or community empowerment through trophy hunting, are quickly countered (see responses to Dickman et al., 2019), and it may be that objections to the benefits of trophy hunting are simply an objection to hunting itself. … Our data suggest that an individual's supportive or repudiative stance toward hunting in Africa will likely determine their position on the benefits of trophy hunting.

Trophy hunting is often a contentious activity, with people supporting or opposing it on a variety of biological, economic, ideological or cultural bases. … This document is focused solely on the relevance of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods.

Increasingly, the practice is considered ethically and morally unjustifiable regardless of any positive outcomes for biodiversity conservation. … Overall, debates centered on recreational hunting are among the most polarizing in conservation science and practice today.

Further complicating policy formulation regarding wildlife use are the frequently polarized (and sometimes misinformed) views of diverse stakeholders, especially concerning sentient and charismatic species, with ethical, ideological, and scientific arguments used to support or oppose potential options (Hammond et al., 2022; Mkono, 2022) .

More fundamental concerns about trophy hunting relate to animal welfare and the ethics of the practice, which arguably constitute the main obstacles to trophy hunting as an acceptable conservation tool (Batavia*etal*.,[2018](#acv12840-bib-0012)).

Potential for over-exploitation juxtaposed with the benefits of sustainable use in conserving ecosystems underlines the need for clear, science-based evidence to demonstrate the sustainability of trophy hunting and mitigate against adverse effects on the conservation status of hunted populations.

Although proponents of sport hunting (e.g., Lindsey et al. 2007; 2013) believe it has potential to raise funds to address conservation-development challenges in Africa, there are fundamental socio-economic, ecological and ethical problems associated with it.

Here we analysed use and trade data for terrestrial mammal species worldwide and found that sport hunted species were more likely to have stable or increasing populations and less likely to be listed as threatened compared with non-sport hunted species.

Wild living resources have many cultural, ethical, ecological, and economic values, which can provide incentives for conservation.

Decision makers must be transparent in their value judgments about human activities they permit (Treves etal.[2017b](#cobi13211-bib-0023)) and the evidence they use to allocate natural resources (Artelle etal.[2018](#cobi13211-bib-0001); Batavia etal.[2018](#cobi13211-bib-0002)).

The role of trophy hunting in the conservation or decline of predators is hotly debated, though opposing views are often poorly supported by empirical evidence.

Treves et al. argue that the evidence that banning trophy hunting would be bad for conservation is weak.

Trophy hunting is, however, controversial and hunting in Zimbabwe has been affected by temporary import bans – e.g. hunters have only just started being able to import trophies to the US following a temporary suspension in 2014.

Contestation was initially driven by ecological concerns but has become more political over time, increasingly pitting developed versus developing countries.

The majority of scientists dispute claims that trophy hunting promotes conservation.

When rigorously managed, trophy hunting areas may be relevant conservation areas for large herbivores, particularly under the current global decline of wildlife abundance across Africa.

While this policy was controversial, we can conclude the moratorium contributed to creating the desired changes in the lion population: (1) known and estimated first year cubs in the population are at the highest levels observed (2) the age distribution of adult females has shifted to a younger population, (3) there were 3 times more known adult males in the population in 2015 than in any of the five years preceding the moratorium, and (4) the number of males of harvestable age has increased.

The Oct. 25 issue of Science contained six letters refuting the Dickman letter’s claims, with counterarguments ranging from the ethics of trophy hunting to the lack of scientific evidence for its benefits. … That pushback is strongly grounded in both ethics and science.

The simple theory behind CBTH is that economic bene fits from trophy hunting will incentivize local communities to be engaged as key partners with policymakers and practitioners to make efforts to conserve endangered species

Examining the case in this manner is necessary to prevent the use of empirical data as a criticism of my argument. I thus make clear my recognition of the scientific foundation and possible consequences of hunting permit sales, and assert that they cannot justify the death of an individual animal; but why not?

On one hand, opponents of trophy huntingdenounce an unethical practice, killing the same animals that are supposed to be protected while the benefits are reaped by wealthy private actors. On the other hand, proponents of trophy hunting argue that by generating revenues, it can then provide much needed incentives for wildlife conservation and management as well as socio-economic benefits for local communities, private landowners and national economies at large.

The analysis indicates that in some regions of Africa trophy hunting of lions would be inappropriate insomuch as at least one empirical premise – necessary for supporting the conclusion that trophy hunting of lions should be tolerated – does not hold. … The value of this analysis does not emerge from expecting it to resolve the issue – that would be an inappropriate standard by which to judge even a purely scientific paper. Rather the value of argument analysis lies in clarifying premises and logic upon which an ethical view rests.

The argumentthat it isnever acceptable fora person tokill anindividual animal forthe purpose of conservation may be consistent with some vegan philosophies or anti-speciesist ethical standpoints. … However, these arguments are so far removed from ourpractical experiences of wildlife conservation and community development, as well as our pragmatic commitments to solutions that benetpeople andbiodiversity,that wedo not addressthem here.

The argument that it is never acceptable for a person to kill an individual animal for the purpose of conservation may be consistent with some vegan philosophies or anti-speciesist ethical standpoints. A related argument also occurs in the academic literature, often in connection with an ideology its proponents call “compassionate conservation”. However, these arguments are so far removed from our practical experiences of wildlife conservation and community development, as well as our pragmatic commitments to solutions that benefit people and biodiversity, that we do not address them here.

Trophy hunting is often a contentious activity, with people supporting or opposing it on a variety of biological, economic, ideological or cultural bases. … This document is focused solely on the relevance of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods.

Trophy hunting is the subject of intense debate and polarized positions, with controversy and deep concern over some hunting practices and their ethical basis and impacts.

WWF strictly opposes trophy hunting when: … No effort is made to ensure adherence to commonly accepted ethical norms;

While many conservation scientists support trophy hunting for its financial contributions to conservation, they often overlook or vaguely reference strong ethical objections from the public.

However, recreational hunting—especially trophy hunting—has come under increasing scrutiny based on ethical concerns and the arguments that it can threaten species and fail to contribute meaningfully to local livelihoods.