3 Minute Read
The GWCT has observed the trophy hunting debate with interest given its connection with conservation motivations. The call for a ban has largely been led by conservation and animal welfare charities who object to trophy hunting from an ethical, moral and animal welfare perspective.
In contrast many of those opposing a hunting trophy ban fear that it will be an absolute disaster for conservation in Africa as many communities in areas of marginal agricultural land generate their biggest revenues from sustainable hunting as they are rich in wildlife. They also argue that these initiatives often support conservation outside the protected areas. A quick review of the responses to the EFRA Committee’s call for evidence on the Animals Abroad Bill in November 2021 demonstrates these opposing views.
It is interesting that this dichotomy of opinions is replicated many times in conservation and environmental debates, and is the spectrum of views that Government is having to negotiate when designing domestic policy post Brexit. Whilst moral and ethical viewpoints are not to be dismissed, the GWCT’s mantra is “Conservation through wise use”.
Wise use is another way of saying ‘sustainable’ as it is based on the premis that stable wildlife populations are density dependent and therefore when a population is hunted this frees up resources which reduces the impact of other causes of mortality such as disease or increases the birth rate.
The maximum sustainable hunting rate is achieved when the largest number of animals are breeding at the fastest possible rate. Harvesting strategies are usually set at a rate lower than this - the optimum sustainable yield. Game shooting provides an incentive to manage game animals and their habitats as the aim is to enhance productivity and reduce mortality.
This can also benefit animals and plants that have similar requirements. But, over-intensive game management can reduce some biodiversity if, for example, populations of rare carnivores and birds of prey are impacted. Hunting and game management is only conservation through wise use if these species are conserved too.
There are three important considerations in conservation policy that this debate highlights. Firstly, conservation costs money. Whilst Government (both under CAP and now domestic policy) has financed such efforts through agri-environment and other schemes, private individual (as opposed to corporate) investment has been vital in protecting and conserving species and habitats.
This investment has largely been based on game management but increasingly also eco-tourism. In England, Scotland and Wales the GWCT is often engaged in promoting the actions of the private investor - from re-wetting peatland to grey partridge recovery - that are the co-benefits of game management. What is important now is to make those co-benefits part of an estate, shoot or grouse moor’s management strategy so their environmental offering is better understood and quantified.
Secondly as in Africa, private investment here supports conservation outside protected areas (nature reserves) and this is vital in providing habitat connectivity across the landscape. In addition many of the designated areas that we value so much today (National Parks, AONBs, SPAs, SACs and SSSIs) are the product of land management systems that were largely privately funded until post the second world war. Undermining the motivation behind such investment risks losing the goods and services already delivered without, in some cases, any clear understanding of the benefits of alternative land management/land use models.
And, finally, it is important that conservation and animal welfare (and animal rights particularly) are different objectives and should not be conflated. In relation to conservation in Africa this point was highlighted by Dr Chris Brown of the Namibian Chamber of Environment in a recent article (see The link between hunting & tourism in Namibia) who at the outset states that he is “ not a hunter. Nor have I ever been. I am a vegetarian (since the age of about 11), I am part of the environmental NGO sector and I have interests in the tourism industry in Namibia.”
Human exploitation of animals requires an understanding of animal welfare as the animal is ‘under the control of man’ but for wildlife it is important that the long term conservation of the population/species is the main focus. However that is not to the detriment of animal welfare; “humane practices are an integral part of good conservation management and science”.
In this country one could argue that the debate over predator control is aligned to this. As has been proven scientifically, managing nest and chick predators during the all-important breeding season is an important element of wader conservation including the threatened Curlew.
However this needs to be done in a humane way - as demonstrated by the development of a live-catch fox snare that surpasses Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) (see GWCT fox snare); the change in Spring Traps approved for use on stoats to comply with AIHTS standards; and, the conditions surrounding the use of Corvid traps under General Licence.
Whilst there has been much dismay at the possible dropping of the Animals Abroad Bill that would include the ban on importing hunting trophies, the debate surrounding it has demonstrated the consequences of a ban - some unintended - and highlighted the often divergence of views between conservation and animal welfare charities and practical conservationists.
We have often in other policy areas counselled against a ban on something as it often leads to unintended consequences given that the result is seldom black and white. Far better is for Government and stakeholders to work collaboratively towards common goals and adapt management approaches to achieve sustainable outcomes. Nothing is gained by polarised views; everything is possible with consensus.