“Wealth inequality and corruption reduce the effectiveness of trophy hunting as a wildlife conservation tool in South Africa.”

These same countries-South Africa included-are also often home to high levels of biodiversity and species that are highly sought-after by trophy hunters; corruption may undermine the potential conservation benefits associated with TH and place target species at risk [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] . … If present, corruption could potentially undermine the intended benefits of TH by making it difficult to assess how hunting impacts species populations and diverting socioeconomic returns from the intended communities.

If present, corruption could potentially undermine the intended benefits of TH by making it difficult to assess how hunting impacts species populations and diverting socioeconomic returns from the intended communities.

And if trophy hunting is really so lucrative, there is every chance the profits will instead be used to line the pockets of rich (possibly foreign) operators and officials.

Together, the numbers expose trophy hunting not as a people-centred conservation model, but as a market-driven industry serving a narrow, global elite. … Trophy hunting persists in South Africa not because it works ecologically, but because it works politically. It provides foreign revenue without structural reform, conservation optics without land justice and rural narratives without genuine community power. Communities are routinely cited as beneficiaries, yet the hunting industry is silent on how revenue is distributed, or who controls land decisions.

The mechanisms by which such directives are enforced, and their effectiveness assessed, and which body(/ies) should be responsible for raising and disbursing levies are issues that will require further, detailed consideration, especially given current low levels of public trust in institutions and representatives in South Africa (Moosa and Hofmeyr, 2021).

The main driver for the decline in white rhino under the trophy hunting scenario is the high increase in trophy price. In these open access models, price drives species abundance. This is what is known as “trading on extinction”.

The question that now arises is whether we are witnessing a modern iteration of that model: one in which biodiversity, despite its constitutional status as a public trust asset, is being parcelled out to those with access, influence and capital, while the legal architecture meant to prevent exactly this is quietly circumvented.

This can generate significant revenue for tourism operators and landowners. But it has been widely criticised for delivering only a small fraction of the profits to communities living next to the park.

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).

Trophy hunting does not currently work as an effective conservation tool for leopards by providing economic incentives for landowners to reduce illegal hunting and tolerate the wider leopard population. … Quotas are not based on accurate population figures of leopards from field studies, females are allowed in hunting off-take and only game farmers that own hunting farms apply for trophy hunting permits. … Landowners responsible for the majority of leopard mortalities (cattle and community farmers) do not conduct trophy hunting due to their distrust of the complex and bureaucratic application process.

This research, therefore, finds that hunting tourism contributes to reducing poverty and further addresses income inequality, especially in rural and lower-income areas.

The agricultural sector benefits the most, holding important implications for rural development and poverty alleviation in the country.

In order to find common ground, we must first agree on what forms of land use are financially sustainable, which land uses make the biggest social contributions, and whether these land uses are effective conservation tools.

In essence, it turned an already cost prohibitive activity into one even more exclusive for game farmers/wildlife ranchers seeking to compete in a growing market, for local communities to access land, and for hunters seeking to add to their taxidermic collection. … Despite efforts and well-intentioned individuals, the nature of nature conservation in South Africa remains colonial. I argue that the reasons for this are manifold, more specifically rooted in hunter expectations, imagery and representations of Africa, marketing strategies, neoliberalism, failures of land reform, and the ability of the trophy hunting industry to foster relations with state conservation.

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. … In our GGA report, we point out that trophy hunting is a hobby for the wealthy that benefits the wealthy and generates little value for poor rural community members. … Finally, the GGA paper states that: “There is next to no evidence that trophy hunting has been, or will be, well governed in South Africa.

Public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates.

It appears that many ranches are farming the wild rather than wilding the farm and potentially perpetuating land ownership inequality under the guise of South Africa’s “conservation success story”, says Harvey. … Trophy hunting, says Harvey, appears to be a hobby for the wealthy that benefits the wealthy and generates little value for poor rural community members. … Aside from the obvious lack of economic or conservation arguments in favour of trophy hunting in South Africa, says the report, there’s strong evidence of misgovernance.

Further concerns have been raised about the viability of trophy hunting as a principal source of revenue for community based conservation, for example where governance or local capacity is weak (Muposhi et al., 2016).

Pro-hunting groups such as Wildlife Ranching South Africa, Private Rhino Owners’ Association and professional hunters’ groups among many with vested interests in this billion-dollar industry, insist that their activities are not only sustainable, but also beneficial to the country’s economy. However anti-hunting groups insist that these billions are not about conservation, but private profit.

While some researchers argue that PLCAs provide jobs, food, housing and skills (Snyman, 2017; Taylor et al., 2020), others point out that the conversion to game farms from agriculture resulted in many job losses and displacements and criticize the lack of social transformation in PLCA ownership post-Apartheid (Spierenburg & Brooks, 2014).

Supporters of the quota system argue, by contrast, that regulated hunting generates revenue, incentivises private landowners to conserve habitat and fits within international conservation frameworks.

The quotas are seen by professional hunting and wildlife breeding associations as key to preserving the attractiveness of a R44 billion ($2.7 billion) industry. … Animal activists and some conservationists have opposed the hunts as the three species are endangered in some parts of Africa.

The very basis of this economic conservation model is designed for an elite group of wealthy, primarily foreign, hunters, while the impact of extensive hunting is felt at a local level: among ecosystems, local communities and species dynamics. … There’s a glaring imbalance of power in which foreign hunters, outfitters and landowners almost exclusively shape the conservation of wildlife more than rural communities who already bear the brunt of historical marginalization and exclusion, or even the broader South African public. … But in reality, such narratives only invoke local communities rhetorically and do not actually grant them meaningful decision-making powers without the disruption of elite capture and shaping attitudes through tokenistic, superficial involvement.

Trophy hunting also generates benefits to local communities by hunters’ expenditures (e.g., transportation, food, and accommodation) and creates beneficial employment opportunities (Saayman et al., 2018). On the contrary, although trophy hunting has been at the centre of controversies in conservation since its existence, debates about it intensified after July 2015 when an American dentist killed Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in what was perceived as an inhumane manner (Carpenter & Konisky, 2019; Ghasemi, 2021; Makuyana, 2018; McCubbin, 2020). Trophy hunting has been criticised by both public and experts, focusing on the ethical, biological, social, and economic contentions regarding trophy hunting (Ghasemi, 2021; International Fund for Animal Welfare, 2016). In the same fashion, questions remain on the equity of the distribution of hunting revenues to local communities.

In our present study, therefore, it is highly plausible that respondents' house hold income and household size are inextricably linked with their levels of poverty and, by extension, happiness, which in turn serve as an index of respondents' capacity to support pro-conservation attitudes, and their likelihood of supporting non-consumptive income streams.

Concerns include: (1) inequities in access to natural resources; (2) perceptions of over-regulation and over-management; (3) welfare and well-being; (4) irresponsible and unsustainable hunting practices, unethical tourism practices and reputational damage to sector and South Africa; (5) poor understanding of hidden environmental costs, and comprehensive socio-economic contributions and beneficiation; (6) State protected areas’ mediocre performance, (9) intensive and selective breeding for commercial purposes, including trade in animal parts (horn or lion bones).

He said that significant constraints remained, including “limited financial and human resources, inconsistent legislation, weak partnerships, knowledge gaps regarding ecological roles and population dynamics, as well as negative international perceptions and reputational risks”.