“The benefits of trophy hunting outweigh its costs according to the scientific consensus.”

The argument that trophy hunting is required to pay for high security costs therefore is not supported by the outputs of the present model. … This study debunks the myth that trophy hunting and ecotourism are complementary. Ecotourism is preferable from both a financial as well as a biological perspective. … The study finds that trophy hunting does not meet the requirements for “sustainable use” posited by Milner-Gulland and Rowcliffe [65], by failing the “biological sustainability” component of the definition.

The benefits and costs of conservation have not been comprehensively weighed in terms of their environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural aspects, so it is unclear whether expanding nationwide protected areas and enhancing tourism development to align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the Kunming-Montreal targets would generate greater benefits or costs (Chen 2020).

The review of the evidence presented in this essay suggests that under a utilitarian framework, it is doubtful whether the benefits of trophy hunting significantly outweigh the costs to the animals, biodiversity, ecosystems and concerned people. … Taking an approach analogous to Norton's convergence hypothesis (1991), utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethic principles all converge at the level of policy; hence, the opponents have ethical reasons to oppose trophy hunting.

There is however perpetual debate, polarisation, and lack of consensus among conservation nongovernmental organizations, some African governments, and animal rights and welfare groups over the acceptability and effectiveness of trophy hunting as a conservation tool

There is a lack of consensus among some conservation NGOs and African governments concerning the acceptability and effectiveness of trophy hunting as a conservation tool. … Discussion concerning trophy hunting is polarized, with animal rights groups and protectionists on one side, and hunters and pragmatic conservationists on the other (Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003, Loveridge et al., 2006). This polarisation is exacerbated by a lack of reliable data on the impact of trophy hunting on wildlife conservation.

There does not appear to be consensus among stakeholders as to whether international trophy hunting is being applied and used as an effective conservation tool throughout range countries where it is practiced.

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 societal role of African hunting is as contested as the practice itself, with proponents advocating for the benefits of hunting, while critics point to these being inadequate. … Some of contestation around trophy hunting in Africa has centred on the contribution that hunters make to broader African society, such as the funding of wildlife conservation, or of community development schemes. … 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.

Ethical and conservation debates remain active and often polarised. … Some recent reports question whether trophy hunting delivers real conservation or socio-economic benefits, arguing that it may contribute to unsustainable resource use and conflict with broad biodiversity targets (Humane World for Animals, 2022). … Others call for evidence-based regulation rather than sweeping bans, emphasising that well-managed hunting can support habitat protection and generate income for local communities (Yeomans et al., 2022).

Trophy hunting, however, can also have deleterious impacts. Valid criticisms of certain hunting programmes can be ecological, social and ethical. Ecological problems can include driving population declines and disrupting age-sex and social structures (Loveridge*etal*.,[2007](#acv12840-bib-0043); Packer*etal*.,[2010](#acv12840-bib-0064)), while social problems may involve the inadequate or inequitable distribution of benefits which often stem from poor trophy hunting governance (Nelson*etal*.,[2013](#acv12840-bib-0051)). 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)).

We conclude that illegal grazing severely reduced vegetation and soil quality in MKGR. We further claim that trophy hunting contributes directly to wildlife habitat preservation by deploying constant surveillance and preventing illegal grazing. We propose maintaining trophy hunting as an essential ecological tool in wildlife conservation. … Therefore, we conclude that trophy hunting contributes directly to wildlife habitat preservation by deploying various anti-poaching measures, including constant surveillance, which prevents illegal livestock grazing. Thus, we claim that it is vital to maintain trophy hunting as a key socio-ecological factor in conserving wildlife Protected Areas.

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) .

Trophy hunting is often a contentious activity, with people supporting or opposing it on a variety of biological, economic, ideological or cultural bases.

Getting the balance right between the benefits and risks of harvesting wild species is tricky – and even more so when the species being harvested are threatened.

The continuing debates about trophy hunting should be underpinned by an understanding of at least the basic characteristics of the practice (e.g. species, quotas, areas, prices). … Whilst many countries in Asia have established trophy hunting programmes of considerable importance to conservation and local livelihoods, there remains some ambiguity over the extent of trophy hunting in Asia as its basic characteristics in each country have not been compiled.

Use of wild living resources, IF sustainable, is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provide incentives for people to conserve them;

While the Working Group conclusions presented below reflect an attempt to get maximum consensus, it should be noted that not all participants agreed with every conclusion.

Bird and mammal abundances declined by 58% (25 to 76%) and by 83% (72 to 90%) in hunted compared with unhunted areas.

Unfortunately, these justifications do not go deep enough into the direct and indirect mechanisms that affect native plant and animal species and ecosystems. … However, most of the indi vidual animals that are hunted as trophies are large herbivores, and maintaining large populations of these high-demand species may not have any effect on the total number of plant and animals species in the area (i.e., biodiversity), or could cause biodiversity to decline due to poten tial impacts on plant communities from overgrazing and overbrowsing. … While there are many issues relating to the pros and cons of trophy hunting, we suggest that the ecological and evolution ary discussion should focus on relevant variables and interactions that can be linked to trophy hunting.

Countries can include practices such as sustainable wildlife tourism, sustainable hunting and wild product trade amongst the activities for delivering their NBSAPs.

Although the contribution of trophy hunting as a conservation tool is widely recognised, there is perpetual debate and polarization on its sustainability. … There is widespread recognition on the potential and significance of trophy hunting as a conservation tool (Baker, 1997; Damm, 2008; Lindseyet al., 2007a). … However, there is perpetual debate,polarisation and lack of consensus among conservation Non-Governmental Organizations, some African governments,animal rights and welfare groups over the acceptability and effectiveness of trophy hunting as a conservation tool (Loveridgeet al., 2006; Mayakaet al., 2004; Sorensen, 2015).

And yet, the proposition that trophy hunting is imperative to the future of conservation has so far largely been advanced and accepted without compelling empirical support (Peterson & Nelson, 2017; Van de Pitte, 2003).

However, the contribution of hunting to conservation is often contentious for various reasons. … 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. At the same time, banning trophy hunting might not be the best solu tion because biodiversity loss could even be worse in its absence.

The societal role of African hunting is as contested as the practice itself, with proponents advocating for the benefits of hunting, while critics point to these being inadequate. … 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 the subject of intense debate and polarized positions, with controversy and deep concern over some hunting practices and their ethical basis and impacts. … Although there is a pressing need for the reform of hunting governance and practice in many countries, calls for blanket restrictions on trophy hunting assume that it is uniformly detrimental to conservation; such calls are frequently made based on poor information and inaccurate assumptions.

This document builds on existing IUCN policies by setting forth SSC guiding principles on the use of “trophy hunting”, as defined in Section II, as a tool for creating incentives for the conservation of species and their habitats and for the equitable sharing of the benefits of use of natural resources.

Legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat to any of the species or subspecies imported to the UK, but likely or possibly represents a local threat to some populations of eight species. … This hunting does, or could potentially, benefit 20 species and subspecies, and people.

The reality is, however, that such a consensus does not exist. In fact, a large number of conservation experts do not share Dickman et al’s confidence in the benefits of trophy hunting.

Currently, there is a debate of whether trophy hunting should be banned or not, and some developed countries already initiated the ban mainly due to the so-called negative impact of trophy hunting to wildlife and has little contribution to economic development of developing countries. … The findings revealed that there were significantly higher benefits than costs imposed by trophy hunting activities on local communities.

However, the contribution of hunting to conservation is often contentious for various reasons. … 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. At the same time, banning trophy hunting might not be the best solu tion because biodiversity loss could even be worse in its absence.

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.

Trophy hunting is currently the subject of intense debate, with moves at various levels to end or restrict it, including through increased bans or restrictions on carriage or import of trophies. … However, legal, well regulated trophy hunting programmes can, and do, play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities living with wildlife.

We demonstrate that restrictions on trophy hunting would be effective if wildlife-based tourism is an alternative land use to trophy hunting. However, the restrictions on trophy hunting will negatively affect the wildlife (lion) population if alternative land use is not wildlife-based.