Trophy hunting: Gove ‘cautious’ over ban on imports

“Why I think the UK should ban trophy hunting imports”

“Environment Secretary Michael Gove presents himself as a considered figure, as he resists calls to ban trophy hunting imports to the UK, something he describes as a “delicate political balancing act”.  In fairness, he is not wrong.  In the realms of conservation and protection of vulnerable species, this is an incredibly contentious issue.  Many conservation and wildlife charities are either in favour of (well-managed) trophy hunting, or at least do not condemn it.  This includes big hitters in the field such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).  This has led to considerable criticism from those who campaign for trophy hunting bans, though it must be acknowledged that such organisations usually only condone trophy hunting that brings conservation and/or community benefits.

It is this argument that seems to have caused Gove to pause, in the face of calls for a ban from members of the public, celebrities and MPs.  Well-regulated trophy hunting can be argued to benefit conservation and local communities by bringing in much-needed money for animal protection and providing an alternative, sustainable income source for local communities, landholders and businesses (instead of agriculture, for example, which would compete for habitat).

Gove refers to this income stream and criticisms of colonialism.  Again, these are arguments I have sympathy with and the impact of a trophy import ban on range state communities should be neither under-estimated nor ignored.  However, I still believe that a trophy hunting ban is necessary, alongside efforts to support the development of alternative, non-hunting sources of income and sustainable land use.

Conservation perspectives tend to be concerned with balance, biodiversity and species as a whole, thus activities that reduce the threat of extinction and lead to healthy species numbers are generally viewed positively, irrespective of their impact on the lives of individual animals; their deaths are for the greater good.  For many who take a species justice, animal rights, or abolitionist perspective, however, such a view is not acceptable because the life of each animal is valued.  It is not our (humans’) place to decree who should be sacrificed, or to breed animals for this purpose.

Therefore, I believe that regardless of arguments about sustainable and ‘beneficial’ trophy hunting, allowing such behaviour continues to perpetuate the notion that animals are lesser than humans, that we have dominion over them and, crucially, that animals (or at least some of them) are mere commodities, rather than living, feeling, autonomous beings.  As long as such anthropocentric views are held, animals will continue to be mistreated, exploited, harmed and killed with impunity.  No matter how well-regulated and ‘beneficial’ the practice of trophy hunting, its continuance reinforces perceptions that also allow practices that are unsustainable or cause substantial harm and suffering – that it is okay to hunt, in fact that it is good to hunt, as long as you take the ‘right ones’ and pay for the privilege.

Quite simply, I believe that if we want to stop people from seeing the killing of (endangered) animals as acceptable, and collecting trophies as desirable, then this will only be achieved when such activities are completely banned.”

Dr Melanie Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Huddersfield.