“In South Africa, the scientific consensus is that the benefits of trophy hunting outweigh its economic, conservation, social, and ethical costs.”

The argument that trophy hunting is required to pay for high security costs therefore is not supported by the outputs of the present model. Furthermore, the assumption that ecotourism and trophy hunting are complementary is also not supported by the present model. … The model finds that there is no trade-off between profits and conservation. The option that maximises profits and rhino stocks is the ecotourism scenario. … 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 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.

Despite high levels of agreement obtained for lion and rhino hunting in R3, hunting received less attention from experts in R1 in terms of issues to be added to the new legislation for all the species. One of the reasons could be the recently recognized role of legal and regulated hunting for the sustainable conservation of South African species, as in the case of rhinos (88), together with the positive impact on the economy (89).

Several peer-reviewed studies, undertaken at scales that range from a single study site (Balme et al. 2009, 2010) to provincial (Pitman et al. 2015) and national (Packer et al. 2009, 2011, Swanepoel et al. 2014) scales, have demonstrated that poorly-managed trophy hunting may also cause, or at least contribute towards leopard population declines. … There is also little evidence that trophy hunting fosters increased tolerance of leopards (Balme et al. 2009, Pitman et al. 2015) or other large carnivores (Peebles et al. 2013, Chapron & Treves 2016). Hence, offtake by trophy hunting likely compounds, rather than relaxes, pressures on local leopard populations.

The debate about the justifiability of trophy hunting ranges from stressing economic benefits at one end of the spectrum to fundamental ethical objections at the other. Supporters base their argument largely on the perceived virtue of economic benefits and advantages for conservation. … There are too many uncertainties to justify trophy hunting by pointing to benefits for wildlife conservations. … Trophy hunting is not consistent with “sustainable use”.

Despite efforts and well-intentioned individuals, the nature of nature conservation in South Africa remains colonial. … At present, some of these problems include selective breeding for trophy hunting, deliberate breeding of recessive color variations, and fragmented landscapes, causing genetic isolation of species and the disruption of migratory routes, as well as overstocking and associated land degradation, unscientific intensive captive breeding programs, and canned hunting

TH is a divisive topic; some argue that, when well-managed, it offers conservation benefits to target species, conservation incentives for areas of land used for hunting, and socioeconomic benefits to local communities that live in or near hunting areas [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] . Others contend that TH is linked to negative conservation impacts [6, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] , unethical hunting practices [4] [5] [6] 13] , adverse evolutionary effects [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] , and socioeconomic problems for local communities that are intended beneficiaries of the TH programs [5, 7, [19] [20] [21] .

TH is a divisive topic; some argue that, when well-managed, it offers conservation benefits to target species, conservation incentives for areas of land used for hunting, and socioeconomic benefits to local communities that live in or near hunting areas [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Others contend that TH is linked to negative conservation impacts [6,8,9,10,11,12], unethical hunting practices [4,5,6,13], adverse evolutionary effects [14,15,16,17,18], and socioeconomic problems for local communities that are intended beneficiaries of the TH programs [5,7,19,20,21].

The IUCN at the 2004 WCC adopted Recommendation 3.093 stating that it “Supports the philosophy and practice that on state, communal and privately-owned land in southern Africa the sustainable and well-managed consumptive use of wildlife makes a contribution to biodiversity conservation” and further, that it “accepts that well-managed recreational hunting has a role in the managed sustainable consumptive use of wildlife populations”.

Trophy hunting is also deeply divisive because of the ethical concerns it raises around animal welfare. … We are wildlife researchers who have been studying the wildlife economy and local livelihoods in South Africa. We wanted to understand what people living next to protected areas thought about wildlife trophy hunting. … A large majority of the people we interviewed opposed killing animals for trophies and strongly supported wildlife-friendly alternatives.

Publishing the piece in Science, one of the top academic journals in the world, and having it co-signed by no fewer than 128 signatories, creates the impression that there is widespread scientific consensus on the matter. … 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.

Trophy hunting of white rhinoceros incentivizes the conservation and protection of the species in South Africa. … Trophy hunting of black rhinoceros incentivizes the conservation and protection of the species in South Africa … Legal local and international trade in live animals and the export of hunting trophies at present poses a moderate to high risk to the survival of this species in South Africa and is detrimental to the species in the wild.

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. … Trophy hunting takes place in a great variety of governance, management, and ecological contexts, so its impacts on conservation vary enormously, from negative to neutral to positive. In many contexts good evidence is lacking or scanty, so it is currently impossible to evaluate precisely how widespread each outcome is.

On 21 and 22 August 2018, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Environmental Affairs (Portfolio Committee) convened a Colloquium "on Captive Lion Breeding for Hunting in South Africa: harming or Promoting the Conservation image of the country". … One of the recommendations was that "The Department of Environmental Affairs should as a matter of urgency initiate a policy and legislative review of captive breeding of lions for hunting and lion bone trade with a view to putting an end to this practice".

South Africa’s conservation debate is too often anchored within the blunt slogan, “If it pays, it stays.” At face value, this appears pragmatic, even responsible. But there’s a troubling premise underneath it: the survival of South Africa’s wildlife depends on its ability to generate an enormous income for a select group of wealthy farmers and professional hunters from an even wealthier foreign clientele.

The literature review essentially concludes that South Africa’s emphasis on trophy hunting as a conservation tool is based on flimsy empirical grounds, and is at odds with the scholarly work that raises questions not only about trophy hunting’s efficacy but also its likely harm. … The scrutiny provided in this report strongly suggests that the government has little economic, ecological, social or ethical grounds on which to support trophy hunting of elephant, rhino, giraffe, lion or leopard, and the Draft Policy Position is therefore deficient in doing so. … At present, the HLP report and the Draft Policy paper are endorsing trophy hunting of elephants, lions, rhino and leopard on rather flimsy empirical evidence of hunting’s value.

Tourism and hunting both generate substantial revenues for communities and private operators in Africa, but few studies have quantitatively examined the trade-offs and synergies that may result from these two activities.

In 2020, the Minister established the High Level Panel (HLP) to review policies, legislation and practices on matters related to the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros. … The HLP recommended that the department should recontextualise the National Biodiversity Economy Strategy to fully leverage the value of the iconic species as a unique selling point for South Africa, prioritising both responsible photo-tourism and hunting. … Action 2.1.: Increase the number of Big five animals available for fair-chase trophy hunting, especially in community owned areas and lamer contiguous privately owned land. Expanded fair-chase Big five-based Trophy Hunting industry with strong global reputation.

The aim of this research was to determine the economic impact of trophy hunting in the wildlife industry of South Africa. … Using multiplier analysis based on the Social Account Matrix (SAM) of South Africa, the research revealed that trophy hunting annually contributes more than US$341 million to the South African economy and that it supports more than 17 000 employment opportunities.

Presenting wildlife ranching as a sustainable conser vation model requires fair consideration of its impacts on people and the economy, and much contestation of wild life ranches relates to the socioeconomic and equity trade-offs and value-conflicts in the establishment and management of these ranches (Gooden & ‘t Sas Rolfes, 2020).

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.

The Dickman letter, she says, “strongly stated that there is sort of incontrovertible evidence for trophy hunting. There is not scientific consensus on it and we wanted to push back.”

In our new Good Governance Africa (GGA) report, we question whether the government has good grounds on which to determine trophy hunting quotas or promote trophy hunting as a conservation tool, especially on economic grounds. … Our report is clear that the economic evidence in favour of trophy hunting is flimsy at best. … The GGA report shows that the government’s commitment to trophy hunting as a conservation tool on economic grounds is dubious. The opportunity costs are high and typically unaccounted for in this simplistic promotion of a highly extractive hobby.

Trophy hunting elicits contentious debates, with some arguing for the potential of trophy hunting in biodiversity conservation, and others arguing that it cannot be a sustainable form of conservation

This study evaluated the economic impact of hunting on the regional economy of South Africa’s Limpopo Province. … Using the input-output (social accounting matrix) and multiplier analyses, we found that the direct economic impact of hunting in the regional economy of the Limpopo Province, as a result of increased expenditure, exceeded R669 million (US$83.6 million).

Trophy hunters spend USD 250 million per year and support 17 000 jobs1

But the mainstream scientific and conservation establishment increasingly shares the view that the revenue trophy hunting generates is critical for conserving African wildlife.

The findings come at a time of heightened global debate over the ethics and economics of trophy hunting. Proponents argue that it funds conservation and supports rural economies, while critics question its moral and ecological legitimacy as well as the perceived benefits to local communities.

In certain instances, wild species may be more intensively used in South Africa than elsewhere. For example, South Africa's iconic landscapes and megafauna support significant hunting, wildlife tourism and photography sectors.

Trophy hunting takes place in a great variety of governance, management, and ecological contexts, so its impacts on conservation vary enormously, from negative to neutral to positive. In many contexts good evidence is lacking or scanty, so it is currently impossible to evaluate precisely how widespread each outcome is.

At present, global policy around trophy hunting is more informed by public pressure than by research and science (Bauer, Vasile, & Mondini, 2017; Dickman et al., 2018; Macdonald et al., 2017). Thus, increasingly vociferous public pressure on trophy hunting may effectively end trophy hunting in the not-too-distant-future regardless of the scientific evidence regarding its contribution to conservation objectives (Lindsey et al., 2016; Macdonald et al., 2017).

Evidence is lacking to give an answer to the conservation value of trophy hunting.

A recent study published in Biological Conservation (Vol 309, September 2025), amplified by various news outlets, claims widespread community rejection of trophy hunting near Kruger National Park (KNP) and suggests exploring alternative livelihoods. … Contrary to the narrative promoting alternatives, recent scientific research unequivocally demonstrates the significant economic contributions of hunting tourism to the South African economy.

The table and figures show different sources of data, with differing values, highlighting the need for consistent data collection and analysis in order to provide a true reflection of the hunting industry in South Africa, especially given recent negative attitudes towards hunting in general.

The 2014 report(3) “Can Trophy Hunting Actually Help Conservation?” from which the above permit reference was taken, ultimately proved inconclusive. The whole economic evidence to support either side of the argument was far too anecdotal, the distribution of income far too opaque. … Trophy Hunting does not equal well funded conservation. The trickle down of funds is anecdotal, not evident enough to prove the hunter's claim.

There is substantial evidence that the controversial practice of trophy hunting can produce positive outcomes for wildlife conservation and local people. … Although there is a pressing need for the reform of hunting governance and practice in many countries, calls for blanket restric tions on trophy hunting assume that it is uniformly detrimental to conservation; such calls are frequently made based on poor information and inaccurate assump tions. … 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.

Our results suggest that a trophy hunting ban may have many unintended consequences for biodiversity conservation, national economies, and the livelihoods of PLCA owners and employees.

In advocating private sector-led trophy hunting under the umbrella of the SCI "market place", the plan supported an archetypal mode of 'green extractivism': killing indigenous African mammals and exporting body parts as hunting trophies was justified as 'green' by claiming this elite and arguably 'neocolonial' extraction of animals is essential for wildlife conservation.

There are however some areas in relation to the HLP’s identified goals and recommendations where it was not possible to reach full consensus. In such cases, the report reflects these as majority and minority views as provided for in the HLP’s Charter.

Using informational gatherings, presentations, ribbon cutting ceremonies, videos, luncheons, auctions, and a taxidermic smorgasbord of wildlife, SCI establishes a consensus through spectacle, an agreement that only trophy hunting can resolve human wildlife conflict, rural poverty, overpopulation, and food insecurity.

Under current conditions – i.e. without measures to address any unintended consequences – many researchers and policy makers are concerned that the ending of trophy hunting could result in negative impacts, including on species conservation and on the livelihoods of communities that depend upon it as a source of income.

This current research has not considered the benefit of hunting tourism to government in terms of tax revenue gained, which could be a valuable addition in future research. Furthermore, our data does not allow us to do land use comparisons. Hence, the research could also be expanded to consider revenue per hectare, which is important in land use comparisons.

There are however some areas in relation to the HLP’s identified goals and recommendations where it was not possible to reach full consensus. In such cases, the report reflects these as majority and minority views as provided for in the HLP’s Charter.

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

There are however some areas in relation to the HLP’s identified goals and recommendations where it was not possible to reach full consensus. In such cases, the report reflects these as majority and minority views as provided for in the HLP’s Charter.

Despite the large scale of the wildlife ranching sector and its continuing growth, there is still much that we do not know about the sector (Langholz & Kerley, 2006; Bothma & von Bach, H.J.S., 2010; Lindsey, Romañach & Davies-Mostert, 2009; Lindsey et al., 2013), including basic information such as exactly how many wildlife ranchers there are in total, how much land they occupy, and how many animals they own.