“Taking an animal trophy as a souvenir is the central point of contention in debates about trophy hunting.”

We identify the central act of wildlife "trophy" taking as a potential source of ethical discomfort and public opposition. We highlight that trophy hunting entails a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and claim its body or body parts as a trophy of conquest. … This is the basic fact that trophy hunting involves a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and subsequently retain some or all of the animal's body as a "trophy." This practice is intrinsically troubling, and we argue it is also morally inappropriate.

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.

We identify the central act of wildlife “trophy” taking as a potential source of ethical discomfort and public opposition.

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

African trophy hunting is controversial. Central to the debate on this practice is whether it may be justified by any broader provisions to African society. These typically include meat supply to poor communities, problem animal control, and the funding of conservation and community development.

Although most contentions have been around ecological and management issues in trophy hunting, the controversy also has roots in ethical considerations regarding killing animals for recreation and trophies (Dobson, 2012; Nelson et al., 2016) .

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.

Any form of consumptive, exploitative wildlife use is likely to be opposed by those who embrace animal rights, but the killing of animal for a trophy is a particularly emotive topic, exemplified by the appearance of words like “evil” and “senseless” in public discourse (see discussions in Bichel and Hart 2023).

We identify the central act of wildlife "trophy" taking as a potential source of ethical discomfort and public opposition. We highlight that trophy hunting entails a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and claim its body or body parts as a trophy of conquest. … This is the basic fact that trophy hunting involves a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and subsequently retain some or all of the animal's body as a "trophy." This practice is intrinsically troubling, and we argue it is also morally inappropriate.

At the same time, the issue of legal recreational hunting of iconic and threatened species is currently an issue under intense scrutiny and subject to conflicting ideological positions [22].

For instance, trophy hunting could be unacceptable if it is wrong to kill animals, who have some rights to existence, only to acquire a trophy.

The public acceptance of any form of recreational hunting, even in relation to invasive alien species, 36 is today lower than it has ever been in the past, 37 with concerns regarding animal welfare and rights dominating the discussion and ethical apprehension on the morality of hunting for pleasure. 38

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.

Trophy hunting has strong supporters and opponents. The controversy focuses on the morality of hunting for pleasure rather than for practical use, as well as questions about the extent to which big-game hunting benefits conservation efforts.

Consistent witha large bodyof trophyhunting literature(e.g. Angulaetal.,2018;Dube,2019;Koot,2019),theimportance oftrophyhuntingconsequencesforlocalcommunitieswasthe strongestpredictorofconservationscholars'positionontrophy hunting.

The motivation for killing Cecil was recreation for the purpose of acquiring a trophy. The explosion of condemnation for this hunter’s actions is a testament to the fact that many people do not believe trophy acquisition is an appropriate motivation to kill (Decker et al. 2015).

African trophy hunting is controversial. Central to the debate on this practice is whether it may be justified by any broader provisions to African society. These typically include meat supply to poor communities, problem animal control, and the funding of conservation and community development.

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.

Trophy hunting denotes a type of selective recreational hunting of nonhuman animals (hereafter, animals) done to obtain their body parts as a representation of success or memorial (Pospisil,[2017](#pan310160-bib-0100)). … As its definition implies, trophy hunting can be distinguished from other forms of hunting that are done for survival, subsistence or cultural purposes. … Moreover, although there might be some components of physical activity and skill practicing involved, recreation or sport is not focal to trophy hunting, since the ultimate aim in trophy hunting is obtaining a trophy (i.e. a sign of victory, reward and success).

We identify the central act of wildlife “trophy” taking as a potential source of ethical discomfort and public opposition. … This is the basic fact that trophy hunting involves a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and subsequently retain some or all of the animal's body as a “trophy.”

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

Trophy hunting is hunting of animals with specific desired characteristics (such as large antlers), and overlaps with widely practiced hunting for meat.

We note, however, that the term “trophy hunting” can be misleading. Hunting takes many forms, and hunters have diverse motivations. Gaining trophies may be a minor or incidental motivation for some hunters, who may also be motivated by, for example, the prospect of obtaining food; managing a population in order to conserve other species of plants or animals or to enable forest regeneration; being in nature; continuing a culturally important or traditional set of practices; and inter acting with family and friends.

Trophy hunting is the controversial killing of an animal for competition or pleasure, with the purpose of acquiring body parts - such as heads, tusks, antlers, horns, or skins - as a status symbol or for display.

Wildlife tourism, by its fundamental nature, preserves the subject of its value. A leopard photographed at sunset is still a leopard the following morning, available to be seen again, to breed, to fulfil its ecological role, and its role in its environment and population. Trophy hunting is categorically different: it permanently and irreversibly removes individual animals and their genes from the population, alters the ecology of the area and while often dresses up as “sustainable and controlled”, it is driven by financial reward, a thrill, or the trophy, as a singular act of financial reward in the act of commoditising a public ecological asset for private gain.

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.

The issue is whether eating the meat of a hunted animal makes any deep moral difference. … When an incident like the one involving Palmer and Cecil next captures the world’s attention, I think it would be a mistake for us to focus on the trophy hunting aspect. The relevant questions concern the morality of hunting the type of animal killed and of hunting (by well-to-do Westerners and others who don’t need the meat) generally.

Some believe trophy hunting of lions is an appropriate measure for conserving lions because it can incentivize maintenance of lands in a condition suitable for lions and other wildlife. Others disagree.

A wild animal is not a prize. A life is not a trophy. A body part is not a holiday souvenir.

Trophy hunting is currently the subject of intense debate and polarised positions, with controversy and deep concern over the practice of trophy hunting, its ethical basis, and its impacts.

Trophy hunters claim that trophy hunting aids in wildlife conservation efforts, contributes greatly to national economies, and helps support local communities. These claims are deeply controversial.

Every year, hunters from Europe and the United States travel to Africa to participate in “trophy hunting,” the act in which hunters bring home dead animals to display as trophies and souvenirs on their walls.

One of the loudest, most persistent groans from the undead is: “ Trophy hunting is a necessary tool that saves endangered species.”