“Blanket bans on trophy hunting and trophy imports increase illegal hunting and poaching.”

Examples of policies that ban hunting might increase the demand for wildlife and expand poaching (Challender and MacMillan, 2014) … A ban in trophy hunting has been suggested to accelerate biodiversity loss (Mbaiwa, 2018; Lindsey et al., 2007a) . This is because it accounts for a significant contribution of money for conservation particularly for developing countries, as well as reducing ecological impacts' related to mass tourism (Di Minin et al., 2016) . … The ban has reduced revenue for antipoaching but also elevated ivory prices in the plack market and therefore increases in poaching at local scale.

It is recognized in brief that banning the legal movement of hunting trophies could lead to increased illegal wildlife trade and reduce the amount of protein local communities receive as a by-product of trophy hunting but the impact assessment does not present detail on remedial measures … Reduced funding could jeopardize law enforcement, anti-poaching efforts, and monitoring thereby increasing other threats to species and habitats.

Lion range States were asked whether import bans on hunting trophies, including but not limited to African lions, would likely increase or decrease the number of lions killed overall. Of the 13 countries who expressed an opinion on the outcome, 54% thought that import bans would increase the overall number of lions killed, 15% thought it would remain the same and 31% thought it would decrease it. … An anticipated increase in retaliatory killings of lion in the absence of benefits from trophy hunting were cited by some range States as the reason why there may be an increase in the overall number of lions killed.

Reduced tourism benefits have led to the development of negative attitudes by rural residents towards wildlife conservation and the increase in incidents of poaching in Northern Botswana.

Poorly regulated hunting may lead to calls for stricter regulations or bans, but such legal restrictions may in turn perversely lead to more intensified and organised illegal hunting activity, further undermining conservation objectives.

The ban, therefore, left local communities without the "incentive to protect" natural resources as the ban negatively affected their livelihoods without any viable option. An article cited illegal bushmeat harvesting in Kenya due to a lack of benefits from wildlife resources by communities adjacent to a national park (The Economist 2010). … Our research found that negative attitudes toward wildlife had increased in both communities due to an escalation in HWCs, an increase in wildlife numbers, and the destruction of raw material used for basket weaving. The change in attitudes was linked to the ban on trophy hunting by the participants, as some believed wildlife was more protected than human life and livelihoods. Both communities believed that the human-wildlife conflict would not have escalated without the ban on trophy hunting. Therefore, the current situation frustrated conservation efforts and potentially escalated poaching.

The argument that trophy hunting is required to pay for high security costs therefore is not supported by the outputs of the present model. … 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.

But blanket bans or restrictions affect both good and bad hunting practices. They are a blunt instrument that risks undermining important benefits for both conservation and local livelihoods, thus exacerbating rather than addressing the prevailing major threats of habitat loss and poaching.

Emslie et al., (2019) further highlights that measures that have been introduced to restrict trophy hunting, such as trophy hunting import bans by some countries and refusal of certain airlines to transport trophies, has the potential to negatively impact on African rhinoceros conservation by reducing revenue generated through this source.

For Siberian ibex it is explicitly recognized that banning legal hunting for trophies and associated trade risks removing incentives to prevent poaching and may increase human-caused mortality of the species (Reading et al. 2020a). … For lion, regulation which reduces the profitability of legal hunting for trophies could result in widespread negative impacts for wildlife-based land use, anti-poaching, and tolerance of lion outside protected areas (Hunter et al. 2013 cited in Bauer et al. 2016).

Examples of policies that ban hunting might increase the demand for wildlife and expand poaching (Challender and MacMillan, 2014) … A ban in trophy hunting has been suggested to accelerate biodiversity loss (Mbaiwa, 2018; Lindsey et al., 2007a). … The ban has reduced revenue for antipoaching but also elevated ivory prices in the plack market and therefore increases in poaching at local scale.

Well-managed and sustainable trophy hunting is an important conservation tool which provides both livelihood opportunities for rural communities and incentives for habitat conservation, and generate profits which can be invested for conservation purposes.

Only Kenya maintains a full trophy hunting ban, and nations that imposed bans in the past, such as Botswana and Zambia, have subse quently lifted these (Blackie, 2019; Booth et al., 2020). One reason why full bans have been reversed is that trophy hunting provides benefits to people (Government of Botswana, 2018; Mbaiwa and Hambira, 2023).

In the nonattendance of ample funding to support conservation, depopulation of game species and loss of their associated habitats are the immediate dooms (Ripple et al., 2019). … In biodiversity rich landscapes, where photographic tourism is unfeasible, trophy hunting is the sole contrivance for generating conservation fund (Di Minin et al., 2016; Lescuyer et al., 2016).

Other threats, notably unregulated hunting, poaching, and/or retaliatory killing, are much greater for most species imported to the UK as hunting trophies… The bill could also undermine conservation efforts that are supported by legal hunting for trophies. More evidence is needed on the potential impacts of the bill, but it could reduce revenue for conservation areas that depend on such hunting to support management, including law enforcement and anti-poaching efforts, and thereby mitigate other threats to species and habitats.

The question arises whether the presence of legal hunting activities can signi ficantly reduce illegal hunting and poaching through the mere presence of legal hunting activities. Observations and initial scientific stu dies support this hypothesis. … Studies suggest that illegal land users, sett lers, and poachers tend to avoid areas with established hunting management and anti poaching patrols, thereby enhancing conser vation efforts (Strampelli et al. 2022). … Furthermore, the presence of legal hunting in an area significantly prevents poaching and il legal killing of wildlife, as locals, due to the con flict between humans and wildlife, are general ly deterred from engaging in such activities by the presence of hunting personnel or the pro mise of financial gains.

During the three years of the moratorium, we documented 17 mortalities, including poaching (1), infanticide (9), disease (1), injuries (2), and unknown sources (4). … We observed 3.4 lions/year carrying snares during the hunting period and 3.7 lions/year during the moratorium. During the study, we confirmed only two mortalities that appeared to be caused by an injury from a wire snare, one during the hunting period and one during the moratorium.

Without long term action plans, conventional restrictions can encourage black-market international trade, leading to unsustainable illegal harvesting (Hutton and Webb, 2003; Conrad, 2012). … There is no poaching now in Canada because of high community compliance, self-regulation, high visibility of hunt outcomes (i.e., pelts are stretched and dried outside making them difficult to conceal), and general Inuit support for current management (Freeman and Wenzel, 2006; Wenzel, 2011). However, if polar bear pelts become an unobtainable commodity internationally and demand intensifies, prices could increase, encouraging the development of an illegal market.

Conversely, trophy hunting was found to provide, or have the potential to provide, significant environmental and social benefits. These included protecting wildlands from conversion to agriculture; providing resources to prevent poaching; income and employment for Indigenous peoples and local communities; provision of meat for local communities; and enhanced population growth for threatened species.

When the conditions for a “Perfect Storm” for poaching exist, a trade ban may have the unintended effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, illegal trade, thereby accelerating the decline of the species in the wild. … A sharp increase in poaching and rise in commercial value may coincide with their implementation (or even announcement thereof) [8, 11]. … Trophy hunting in Africa is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about conservation, but some studies show it can generate important incentives for conservation, and some conservation organizations agree [32, 33].

An increasing number of countries in the Global North have enacted, or are considering, import bans on hunting trophies with the aim of protecting wildlife. … Combined, these policies would restrict approximately one-fifth of this trade, likely with significant implications for conservation.

We find that the UK government's proposal shares the shortcomings of existing bans that have (1) failed to address, or have even amplified, key threats to hunted species, (2) imposed costs on citizens of other countries, and (3) delegitimized the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Among other concerns, the impact assessment fails to adequately consider the costs and benefits to local communities, which affect conservation incentives and outcomes, in countries where legal hunting for trophies takes place.

Other threats, notably unregulated hunting, poaching, and/or retaliatory killing, are much greater for most species imported to the UK as hunting trophies… The bill could also undermine conservation efforts that are supported by legal hunting for trophies. More evidence is needed on the potential impacts of the bill, but it could reduce revenue for conservation areas that depend on such hunting to support management, including law enforcement and anti-poaching efforts, and thereby mitigate other threats to species and habitats.

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.

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.

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.