“Disregarding governance quality and socioeconomic factors, scientific adaptive management can remedy most non-ethical objections to trophy hunting.”

In some cases, therefore, the biological and ecological conditions may indicate that a sustainable harvest is feasible, but in practice it cannot be justified because the management regime or governance conditions are inadequate to ensure the harvest remains sustainable, quotas are enforced, or benefits are shared equitably.

In these open access models of exploitation it is price that drives species abundance: the higher the price the more likely it is that the species will be extirpated. How this works in practice is that, as price increases, more entrants are attracted (in this case, the number of game farms stocking rhinos increases). Trophy hunting, as measured by the number of kills, therefore also increases. This is what ultimately results in the declines in white rhino populations under trophy hunting.

The IUCN SSC considers that trophy hunting, as described in Section II above, is likely to contribute to conservation and to the equitable sharing of the benefits of use of natural resources when programmes incorporate the following five components: Biological Sustainability; Net Conservation Benefit; Socio-Economic-Cultural Benefit; Adaptive Management: Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting; and Accountable and Effective Governance

The IUCN SSC considers that trophy hunting, as described in Section II above, is likely to contribute to conservation and to the equitable sharing of the benefits of use of natural resources when programmes incorporate the following five components: Biological Sustainability; Net Conservation Benefit; Socio-Economic-Cultural Benefit; Adaptive Management: Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting; and Accountable and Effective Governance

The IUCN SSC considers that trophy hunting, as described in Section II above, is likely to contribute to conservation and to the equitable sharing of the benefits of use of natural resources when programmes incorporate the following five components: Biological Sustainability; Net Conservation Benefit; Socio-Economic-Cultural Benefit; Adaptive Management: Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting; and Accountable and Effective Governance

Most studies also report that with appropriate and consistent management, trophy hunting can be potentially beneficial for species; however, with poor management, trophy hunting can be detrimental for species.

Our theoretical work showed that, within the bounds of a series of empirically well-supported assumptions, compensatory culling of poor-quality individuals at an early life stage had the potential to at least partially compensate for the traitaltering effects of trophy hunting in the short and intermediate term (up to 100 years).

Much of the unethical and unsustainable practice that occurs within the hunting industry is a consequence of weak institutions and judiciaries, as well as fragile and inequitable economies in many African countries.

Sustainability challenges include unscientific bases for setting quotas, excessive quotas and offtakes, lack of restrictions on the age of individuals that can be hunted, and other issues of poor governance (e.g., uncertain property rights, corruption).

Trophy hunting occupies a contentious space at the intersection of conservation, economics, and ethics. This chapter critically examines the conditions under which trophy hunting can contribute to biodiversity protection and rural livelihoods, while also highlighting the risks of ecological degradation, elite capture, and ethical backlash when governance fails.

Any sustainable harvesting strategy must consist of conservative quotas, age-based harvesting, and systematic monitoring to address the inherent uncertainty that accompanies our understanding of demography in naturally sparse large carnivores [15]. … Likewise, many factors limit lion populations and conservative harvest policies, including the use of hunting moratoria, may not address other limiting and likely additive factors (e.g., habitat loss, wire snare by-catch, prey-depletion, poaching, retaliatory killing, and disease) that threaten the persistence of lion populations across Africa.

I do believe, however, that a rule utilitarian approach could endorse the practice if various specific rules were effectively enforced: (a) trophy hunting must not jeopardize wildlife populations, alter natural selection and ecosystem functioning, or diminish native biodiversity; (b) trophy hunting must create equitable net conservation benefits to the local community that are not available through alternative ethical practices; (c) trophy hunting must not contribute to social inequality and injustice; (d) trophy hunting must consider animal welfare and minimize sentient animals' suffering and (e) trophy hunting must not cause public outrage and undermine public trust in conservation. … However, complying with all these rules seems formidable and makes the morality of trophy hunting questionable as a general practice.

Trophy hunting is not consistent with “sustainable use”. And even if it were, “sustainable use” is not the sole criterion for the decision on eligibility of organizations seeking IUCN membership.

While “Cecil the Lion” is perhaps the most highly publicised controversial case, there are examples of weak governance, corruption, lack of transparency, excessive quotas, illegal hunting, poor monitoring and other problems in a number of countries. This poor practice requires urgent action and reform. … Rather than bans on trophy hunting, poor practices could be improved by sustained engagement with and support for responsible national agencies to improve governance frameworks and on-theground management.

6. Analyses of uses of wild living resources in a number of different contexts demonstrate that there are many biological, social, cultural, and economic factors, which combine in a variety of configurations to affect the likelihood that a particular use may be sustainable. … 8. To increase the likelihood that any use of a wild living resource will be sustainable requires consideration of the following: … b) Institutional structures of management and control require both positive incentives and negative sanctions, good governance, and implementation at an appropriate scale.

We conclude that evolutionarily enlightened management may accommodate trophy hunting. … Although heritability and young–adult correlation in the focal trait were required for compensatory culling to work, shifting parameters and violating several assumptions revealed model resilience in terms of qualitative predictions.

We determined that sustainable trophy hunting only returns \~30% of the value of crops lost to the community and cannot alone offset the current costs of coexistence with elephants. … The costs of crop depredation were greater than the benefits of hunting in the majority of our bootstrap simulations. … our case study demonstrates that sustainable hunting alone does not offset the costs of elephant crop depredation in a Namibian conservancy.

Of the statistically significant predictors of trophy hunting's moral acceptability, concerns about local communities had the strongest effect. … Our findings highlight the importance of local communities' welfare in the con servation scholars' moral assessment of trophy hunting. … This suggests a need for more empirical research on trophy hunting's consequences for local communities, which might help the debate by clarifying one of the most salient factual disagreements.

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. … Advocating for increased populations of game species does not qualify as conservation or stewardship (Holsman 2000) and, despite potential for the hunting industry to support conservation, costs and benefits of hunting are difficult to untangle from unknown effects of selectively removing animals from populations (Loveridge et al., 2016; McComb et al., 2001).

We determined that sustainable trophy hunting only returns ~30% of the value of crops lost to the community and cannot alone offset the current costs of coexistence with elephants.

The “Non-detriment findings for Loxodonta africana (African Elephant) Controlled Hunting in Botswana and its assessment against the IUCN SSC “Guiding principles on trophy hunting as a tool for creating conservation incentives. Ver. 1.0. IUCN SSC (2012)” documents, inter alia, the sustainability of safari hunting.

Harvest strategy was robust to the uncertainty in the population estimates obtained from monitoring, but poaching had a much stronger effect on quota and sustainability. … We demonstrate here the power of an MSE approach for species that are trophy hunted. … The comparison of harvesting strategies showed that the adaptive approach outperformed proportional harvesting by reducing variation in the quota when poaching occurred at an unknown level.

The frequency at which these factors are monitored and analysed to inform the quota setting process as part of the adaptive management process is often low and not consistent [41, 46]. Fragmented monitoring programs of these parameters are mostly a result of the long-term costs associated with their monitoring over time, thus compromising the effectiveness of the process [47].

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.

When combined with guidelines and legal regulations, the approach and methods described here will allow the authorities to apply penalties for hunting unacceptable trophies and further justify quota adjustments if professional hunters persistently

Above, we showed that poaching, drought, elephant movements, and tusk damage can each interfere with elephant hunting by reducing trophy sizes and, for all but tusk damage, reducing bull numbers. But what happens when we combine these factors, as would happen in the real world? As shown in Fig. 9, combining these four factors reveals that they have additive effects on elephant hunting. Thus, all of the factors in Fig. 9 need to be included when setting elephant hunting quotas, or Botswana risks overhunting that depletes mature bulls.

The IUCN SSC considers that trophy hunting, as described in Section II above, is likely to contribute to conservation and to the equitable sharing of the benefits of use of natural resources when programmes incorporate the following five components: Biological Sustainability; Net Conservation Benefit; Socio-Economic-Cultural Benefit; Adaptive Management: Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting; and Accountable and Effective Governance

Much of the unethical and unsustainable practice that occurs within the hunting industry is a consequence of weak institutions and judiciaries, as well as fragile and inequitable economies in many African countries.

Where political and governance structures are adequate, trophy hunting can help address the ongoing loss of species. … Inadequate political, legal, and governance structures are currently preventing trophy hunting from being an effective tool for cre ating conservation incentives in sub Saharan Africa.

The findings suggest that the lifting of the hunting ban can serve as a catalyst for transformation and increased resilience, if there is strong communication across levels of government which cultivates inclusive decision-making and economic diversification to reduce dependency on trophy hunting tourism.

The sustainability of trophy hunting in Category VI protected areas in most southern African countries is increasingly subjected to scrutiny both from an ecological and ethical perspective [52].

However, adaptive management has been shown to improve the sustainability of trophy hunting around Hwange National Park (Macdonald, 2016, p. 83; Loveridge et. al., 2016).

While “Cecil the Lion” is perhaps the most highly publicised controversial case, there are examples of weak governance, corruption, lack of transparency, excessive quotas, illegal hunting, poor monitoring and other problems in a number of countries. This poor practice requires urgent action and reform. … Rather than bans on trophy hunting, poor practices could be improved by sustained engagement with and support for responsible national agencies to improve governance frameworks and on-theground management.

Trophy hunting can deliver positive socio-economic outcomes, boost economic welfare in communities, and improve attitudes towards wildlife, though benefits are often too few or unevenly distributed to achieve this. Positive outcomes are more likely where devolution of rights and community participation in decision-making are extensive, and where participation and benefit distribution are equitable.

Our models show that any amount of hunting significantly reduces the number of mature bulls in the population, and the level of reduction increases with quota size. … To date, the Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) has not incorporated drought, poaching, or other sources of elephant mortality into planning for hunting. … Because elephants reproduce slowly, risks of overhunting are significant.