International Animal Rights Organization’s Study Acknowledges The Benefits Of Trophy Hunting.

Trevor Oertel

August 2025

A recent study, “Attitudes of local communities to wildlife conservation and non-consumptive, alternative income sources, near Kruger National Park, South Africa”,  commissioned and funded by the World Animal Protection (WAP), published in Biological Conservation (Vol 309, September 2025) and amplified by the Daily Maverick (28 July 2025) claims that communities near Kruger National Park reject trophy hunting and that alternative livelihood options should be explored. Yet the very same study simultaneously acknowledges the conservation and economic benefits that trophy hunting has delivered in Southern Africa for decades.

This contradiction is at the heart of the problem: the study does not confront the source of public opposition to hunting, nor does it critically assess how representative the voices quoted actually are of the broader land-use reality in the region.

The paper states:

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

And as described in the study “the tenor of the current global debate surrounding trophy hunting is such that there exists a growing probability that trophy hunting could end in the near future in response to public pressure.

Under current conditions – i.e. without measures to address any unintended consequences – many researchers and policy makers are concerned that the ending of trophy hunting could result in negative impacts, including on species conservation and on the livelihoods of communities that depend upon it as a source of income.

They highlight that revenue generated by trophy hunting currently provides an incentive for rural communities (which are often relatively poor) and private landowners, and regional governments (e.g. Limpopo Provincial Government, 2023) to support conservation, and these financial incentives could be lost were trophy hunting to end.

If financial incentives for conservation were to fall, a perceived risk is that local communities and private landowners may turn to alternative sources of income, such as poaching of wildlife or transformation of natural habitats to other forms of land use (e.g. agricultural uses such as livestock ranging) that provide higher return on investments but with considerably lower conservation value.

Some hunting revenue may be able to be replaced by ecotourism. Ecotourists, however, typically travel only to relatively accessible areas.”

These are not insignificant points. In fact, it is perhaps the most important finding in the study, though the authors treat it as a side note.

Who is driving that public pressure?

It is not coming from the rural African communities who live alongside wildlife and bear the costs of its presence. It is driven largely by foreign NGOs and urban-based lobby groups rooted in animal rights ideology, not conservation science or socio-economic realities.

These groups wield emotive campaigns across digital media, often misrepresenting facts and vilifying hunting without engaging the voices of landowners, conservation professionals, or rural custodians. The resulting “public pressure” is thus manufactured by narrative, and not grounded in local truth.

The paper correctly identifies that banning hunting could harm both people and wildlife, yet it fails to interrogate why public opinion is being manipulated against a practice that has demonstrably conserved habitats, maintained viable populations of wild animal and their habitats, and generated revenue for landholders and communities

A prominent example of this group is World Animal Protection, a multi-million Pound UK-based animal rights group that has consistently lobbied against all forms of hunting, including regulated and sustainable hunting. Besides the study being funded by WAP it fails to clearly disclose that at least three of its authors are either employed by or have formerly been employed by WAP, calling into question the neutrality of the research and its conclusions.

When those crafting the questions, framing the data, and interpreting the findings are aligned with an organization vocally opposed to hunting in any form, one must ask, is this research or advocacy under the banner of science?

The Daily Maverick article and the study it draws from focus on communities bordering Kruger National Park in the north-eastern Lowveld of South Africa. However, it is worth asking, “How much actual trophy hunting happens in this area?”

The answer is very little, particularly on communal lands in the immediate vicinity of the Park. Hunting in this region is constrained by land tenure, regulation, and land-use policies. This means most households surveyed in the study have had minimal, if any, direct experience of benefits from hunting in general, and specifically from trophy hunting.

It is therefore not surprising that many interviewees do not see hunting as a livelihood opportunity, they have not been given the opportunity to benefit from it in the first place.

This raises a deeper issue, is this study truly about assessing trophy hunting, or is it part of an agenda to explore alternatives in an area where hunting hasn’t really been implemented or tested as a sustainable revenue model?

The study proposes alternatives like vegetable farming, sewing, or craft-making, all worthy initiatives, but hardly equivalent in income potential, ecological compatibility, or how they would incentivise conservation in any way? Hunting alongside photographic tourism aligns livelihoods with managing wildlife and their habitats. Generating income from vegetables, sewing, or crafts moves communities away from wildlife and disincentivises conservation.

For instance, vegetable farming in buffer zones around protected areas risks increasing human-wildlife conflict. Water access, crop raiding by elephants or baboons, fencing costs, and soil degradation are real constraints. Yet the paper glosses over these very practical concerns.

In contrast, hunting incentivizes keeping wild land wild, placing value on intact ecosystems and large, free-ranging species. It doesn’t require land clearance or conflict with the ecosystem, it works with it.

Instead of using communities’ limited exposure to hunting as proof of rejection, the study could have investigated:

* Why opportunities from hunting have not reached these communities.

* How to expand access and equity in hunting revenue, including governance reforms.

* How existing conservation success in neighbouring areas like APNR (Associated Private Nature Reserves) or KwaZulu-Natal community hunting initiatives could serve as models.

The Daily Maverick article is penned by Adam Cruise, a journalist well known for his opposition to trophy hunting. In this instance, Cruise’s tone borders on celebratory. He appears almost gleeful in finding an academic study that seems to validate his anti-hunting narrative. However, as a journalist, Cruise would do well to temper his personal biases and acknowledge the full scope of the study’s findings, including its clear warnings that banning hunting could harm both conservation and local livelihoods.

The study paradoxically confirms that ending trophy hunting could harm both conservation and communities, yet it aligns itself with a movement that is pressuring governments to do just that, without addressing the source of that pressure or the socio-political power imbalance behind it.

Real conservation solutions must be led by local needs, backed by science and sound conservation management, and shielded from ideological interference. Disregarding proven conservation industries like hunting simply because of foreign sentiment, often divorced from African realities, risks sacrificing both people and wildlife for the sake of fashionable morality.

The debate about trophy hunting should not be about emotion or optics, it should be about what actually works for conservation and for the people who live with wildlife every day.

Written by Trevor Oertel

Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA)

Trevor Oertel is a South African businessman with business interests in South Africa, Botswana and the UAE. But foremost, he is a conservationist and wildlife enthusiast. In his youth, he was a professional hunter and wildlife manager, hunting and working in the Eastern Cape and the Kalahari.

Trevor’s passion is falconry, a pursuit he has followed since childhood, specifically hunting ducks and partridges under Peregrine Falcons. Trevor has been very instrumental in legalising falconry in various provinces in South Africa and was instrumental in the formation of the South African Falconry Association (SAFA) in 1990.

Trevor has served under various Ministers of Environmental Affairs, on the “Minister’s Wildlife Forum”. As a former farmer in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, he finds some conservationists’ naivety in understanding basic concepts such as “carrying capacity” and “sustainable use” hard to understand as they sit back watching biodiversity and habitat destroyed, while promoting failed bans that enrich poachers and animal right organisations at the expense of our wildlife, natural heritage and African people.

Trevor is currently an Executive Committee Member of the “Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa” (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings both in Panama and Geneva.