“Scientific evidence cannot justify the necessity of trophy hunting to the general public.”

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. … These results suggest that sport hunting is linked with more favourable conservation status of mammal species and can be a component of sustainable wildlife management.

Surprisingly, despite the extensive literature on recreational hunting, the evidence to address some of the most pressing academic and societal questions (e.g., when is recreational hunting sustainable, and who benefits from it?) is still limited.

We found that perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting were not dogmatic but depended on specific attributes of the hunt (which animal would be hunted, how the meat would be used, and how the revenue would be used), as well as on participants' country of residence, degree of formal education, social identities and orientation towards people and wild animals.

Trophy hunting is a form of wildlife use that, when well managed, may assist in furthering conservation objectives by creating the revenue and economic incentives for the management and conservation of the target species and its habitat, as well as supporting local livelihoods.

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. … Moreover, our survey points to a cohort of people that did not consider the benefits of hunting in Africa to be acceptable under any circumstance, even where the practice contributes to conservation or community development.

Claiming that trophy hunting benefits imperiled species is significantly easier than finding evidence to substantiate it.

Messages framed around the ecological or socioeconomic benefits of managed trophy hunting slightly increased approval for the practice, but identity-focused priming items had no comparable effect. … Even so, this improvement was not substantial enough to counter established negative attitudes toward the practice: even after viewing their assigned message, all respondents remained largely unsupportive of trophy hunting. … This finding demonstrates that it is possible to change negative attitudes toward trophy hunting, however slightly, through messaging.

Treves et al. argue that the evidence that banning trophy hunting would be bad for conservation is weak. … Nothing in Treves et al convinces us that based on the current evidence, removing trophy hunting without appropriate alternatives would be less hazardous than retaining it.

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.

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) .

The argument that trophy hunting is required to pay for high security costs therefore is not supported by the outputs of the present model. … Policy-makers can benefit from evidence-based guidance on such controversial issues, especially the question of whether hunting is beneficial or detrimental to conservation [23]. … The argument that trophy hunting is required in order to generate sufficient profits so that security measures can be put in place to combat poaching, therefore, is not supported by the present paper.

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.

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.

A singular focus on either hunting or tourism would reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land-use option and have grave repercussions for the viability of community-based conservation efforts in Namibia, and possibly other parts of Africa.

Bird and mammal populations were considerably lower in areas where hunting occurred. Although commercial hunting and proximity to roads and urban centers were the most damaging factors, all hunting had worrying impacts, even in protected areas.

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 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.

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. … Moreover, our survey points to a cohort of people that did not consider the benefits of hunting in Africa to be acceptable under any circumstance, even where the practice contributes to conservation or community development.

Contrary to claims by proponents of bans, we show that trophy hunting is not a major threat to any CITES-listed species traded as a hunting trophy in 2000-2024. … Arguments used to support bans often mischaracterize trophy hunting and its impacts and fail to recognize the benefits it can, and does, have for wildlife and people.

There is substantial evidence that the controversial practice of trophy hunting can produce positive outcomes for wildlife conservation and local people.

The contribution that hunting makes to the African conservation effort may therefore be an optimal area of compromise within such a contested debate.

Despite outside appeals to stop African hunting, many conservation scientists have outlined the deleterious con servation outcomes of bans (see Dickman et al., 2019). … The conservation backing for hunting stems from a con cern about the longevity of wildlife estates, and the flora and fauna therein (Di Minin et al., 2016). … Of note, respondents affiliated with conservation or wildlife management differed in opinion to non conservationists on all points. Support for hunting among conservationists may be because they are informed on the debate.

This polarisationseems tobe exacerbatedby a lack of reliable data on the impact of trophy hunting on wildlife species, given thatmost information on African trophy hunting occursin unpublished grey literature (Lindseyet al., 2007c),and framing of trophy hunting issues in the mass mediaand social media platforms seem to be emotive andlacks parity (Gandiwaet al., 2014; Sorensen, 2015).

Scholars expressed divergent views on the moral acceptability of trophy hunting as a conservation practice. … The findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary work on ethical issues concerning animal rights and welfare in conservation, as well as providing robust and comprehensive evidence on the consequences of trophy hunting for local communities.

Results of regression analyses showed that utilitarian morals and public understanding of issues facing elephants significantly predicted the acceptability of lethal practices in both contexts.

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.

An evi dentiary basis for informing controversial policy interventions, such as trophy hunt ing, demands strong inference with full disclosure of uncertainties and disentan gled value judgments from observations or inferences.

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. … Here we explain how trophy hunting, if well managed, can play a positive role in supporting conservation as well as local community rights and livelihoods, and we provide examples from various parts of the world.

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.

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

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.

Rather than adopt a stance that is categorically for or against “trophy hunting”, it 101 seems essential to consider this diversity when evaluating specific activities and their 102 ecological, cultural, and socio-economic impacts (Dickman et al. 2019; Mitchell et al. 2021).

Some people have criticised governments for ignoring conservation science advice around trophy hunting bans. Do you think governments should consider conservation science as a priority when considering bans? … Yes No Don’t know 74.7% 17.7% 7.7%

These two high-profile hunts and the ensuing public backlash against the ethics and conduct of trophy hunting in general have led to proposals to ban the practice throughout Africa.

While scientific evidence is only one aspect for consideration in policy-making, objective assessment on the role trophy hunting plays in African conservation serves as a firmer foundation for the complex and multi-faceted management and policy-decisions that need to be made.

Born Free is opposed to the killing of any animal for sport or pleasure, and strongly refutes claims by trophy hunting proponents that their activities significantly support conservation or local communities.