“The ethical status of trophy hunting is unrelated to its effectiveness as a biodiversity conservation tool.”

Increasingly, the practice is considered ethically and morally unjustifiable regardless of any positive outcomes for biodiversity conservation.

Based on the evidence of deviation from utilitarian rule and a failure to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, a utilitarian perspective concludes that trophy hunting is unethical. Trophy hunting can not be a conservation tool when conservation is not at the heart of the matter; instead it remains an income generation tool with social and environmental costs that may be irreversible.

Ethical concerns are at the heart of the ongoing debate on trophy hunting; however, so far, most studies have addressed the issue from a single ethical perspective. These studies, approaching the subject from different ethical perspectives, have reached different conclusions. For instance, those who support trophy hunting as a conservation strategy usually adopt a utilitarian perspective, while those who adopt a deontological perspective usually oppose it. … Analogously, this paper proposes that, regarding trophy hunting, the implications of three major traditional perspectives in ethics (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory) may converge in opposition to the practice of trophy hunting. … Thus, the review of ethical concerns provided in this essay suggests that, when a sufficiently broad range of ethical concerns is considered, the practice of trophy hunting looks to be ethically problematic from all the three ethical frameworks.

Ultimately, the role of trophy hunting in twenty-first-century conservation will depend on its capacity to evolve. Whether it remains part of the conservation toolkit or fades from relevance will be determined not just by biology or economics, but by political will, ethical discourse, and the ability of institutions to deliver just and sustainable outcomes.

Many respondents to the consultation appear strongly opposed to trophy hunting likely because they consider it ethically unacceptable. This does not mean that prohibiting imports of hunting trophies is the most appropriate policy. In democratic societies public opinion should be considered in public policymaking but, critically, it should not be decisive but interpreted with other evidence using appropriate analytical capacity (Howlett et al., 2020) . A key challenge for public policymaking is formulating proportionate policies based on all relevant bodies of evidence, including public opinion shaped by moral values.

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.

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.

For the Ethics Specialist Group, ethical grounding of conservation laws, policies and practices is critical and arguably consistent with IUCN’s overall objective to ensure integrity and diversity of nature. … Policy positions based on economic considerations often neglect critical ethical issues such as ecological justice, human rights and human responsibilities. The implication is that a preconceived level of economic benefit justifies (a degree of) ecological harm; especially if that benefit could be used to advance the human development project.

Several ethical concerns are associated with trophy hunting, and these issues add to the debate on whether the practice is beneficial to conservation.

Currently, the trophy hunting industry is in a difficult position globally, receiving criticism concerning its ethical practicality and efficacy in wildlife conservation and community development [6].

Core to both books is the issue of how current hunting practice may effect conservation and sustainability. … For Bichel and Hart, a major justification for trophy hunting is that income and meat from the industry may be distributed to local and Indigenous communities and constitute incentives for conservation. They additionally affirm that in some contexts, habitats and lands set aside for access by trophy hunters would effectively be lost to conservation without this option. Specific cases to support these points are varied, however. Some research shows declining numbers of key trophy species in hunting areas and argues that trophy hunting is "a weak incentive-based conservation scheme, which is based on an inefficient business model and on a questionable governance"

The sustainability of trophy hunting as a conservation tool has of recent years challenged the global community from moral, ethical and ecological perspective (Macdonald et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2016; Ripple et al., 2016). … Despite the polarity and lack of consensus among stakeholders, some researchers argues that if trophy hunting is given its rightful place in conservation; it may not compromise the population viability of a targeted wildlife population (Crosmary et al., 2015b; Damm, 2015; Di Minin et al., 2016b; Lindsey et al., 2016).

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.

Although proponents of sport hunting (e.g., Lindsey et al. 2007; 2013) believe it has potential to raise funds to address conservation-development challenges in Africa, there are fundamental socio-economic, ecological and ethical problems associated with it.

On one hand, opponents of trophy huntingdenounce an unethical practice, killing the same animals that are supposed to be protected while the benefits are reaped by wealthy private actors. On the other hand, proponents of trophy hunting argue that by generating revenues, it can then provide much needed incentives for wildlife conservation and management as well as socio-economic benefits for local communities, private landowners and national economies at large.

Establishing in principle whether a species can be harvested sustainably – that is without increasing extinction risk or preventing recovery – and determining an appropriate level of offtake, are fundamentally biological and ecological questions that require assessment of life history traits, abundance, population trend, reproductive rate, and other characteristics, as well as the potential impacts on other species and the habitat.

1. Ethical concerns are at the heart of the ongoing debate on trophy hunting; however, so far, most studies have addressed the issue from a single ethical perspective. These studies, approaching the subject from different ethical perspectives, have reached different conclusions. For instance, those who support trophy hunting as a conservation strategy usually adopt a utilitarian perspective, while those who adopt a deontological perspective usually oppose it. … The conservation literature has sparsely addressed ethical considerations of trophy hunting (e.g. Batavia etal.,[2018](#pan310160-bib-0009); Gunn,[2001](#pan310160-bib-0037); Macdonald, Johnson, etal.,[2016](#pan310160-bib-0075); Morris,[2020](#pan310160-bib-0083); Nelson etal.,[2016](#pan310160-bib-0090)). These publications often adopted a single ethical framework to investigate the ethics of trophy hunting, whether utilitarian (Gunn,[2001](#pan310160-bib-0037); Macdonald, Johnson, etal.,[2016](#pan310160-bib-0075)), deontological (Ahmad,[2016](#pan310160-bib-0002); Nelson etal.,[2016](#pan310160-bib-0090)) or virtue ethics (Batavia etal.,[2018](#pan310160-bib-0009)); and came to different conclusions in favour of or opposition to trophy hunting. … 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.

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.

Ethics plays a fundamental role in justifying conservation activities (Minteer & Miller, 2011) so that some scholars consider conservation as an ethically driven science (e.g. Saltz et al., 2018; Soulé, 1985) .

IUCN - The World Conservation Union recognised that "the ethical, wise and sustainable use of some wildlife can provide an alternative or supplementary means of productive land-use, and can be consistent with and encourage conservation, where such use is in accordance with appropriate safeguards".

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.

Because of the growing concern around the conservation status of the African lion, legal trophy hunting has become a controversial and polarizing issue [2, 16, 17]. There are significant financial benefits associated with lion hunting in that it is one of the most lucrative trophy species and can provide revenue to government and communities to incentivize protection of lion habitat and populations [14].

A simulated ban on trophy hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that could cover their operating costs, whereas eliminating income from tourism did not have as severe an effect.

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. … 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.

While trophy hunting has been positively correlated with population recovery, it is not a viable conservation option as it does not take into account the suffering of the animal that is to be hunted.

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.

The sustainability of trophy huntingas a conservation tool hasof recentyears challengedthe global community from moral,ethical and ecological perspective (Macdonaldet al., 2016; Nelsonet al., 2016; Rippleet al., 2016).

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.

In particular, we investigatedthe relationshipbetweenseveral ethical issuessurrounding trophyhuntingraisedin theliteratureandcon- servationscholars'views ontrophy hunting'smorality.

Some people find trophy hunting repugnant (including many of us), but conservation policy that is not based on science threatens habitat and biodiversity and risks disempowering and impoverishing rural communities.

We interrogate arguments used to characterize trophy hunting using data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and empirical research. We show that trophy hunting is not a major threat to any CITES-listed species traded as a trophy during 2000-2022.

In particular, we make suggestions on how net biodiversity benefits and stake holder returns can be achieved simulta neously, and highlight how the hunting industry and governance structures can be made more transparent to avoid unethi cal or illegal practices.

The ethics of canned hunting are dubious, and this abhorrent practice requires reform before it brings down ethically practiced hunting.