Looking at the definitions of canned and trophy hunting, one would assume that it is quite an obvious issue; hunting is wrong and that’s that. However there is huge debate revolving around this topic at the moment and both sides are very passionate about their point of view…
The canned and trophy hunters (hereafter referred to as canned hunters) justify their actions by claiming that they are greatly contributing to the conservation of wildlife and economic contribution. Whilst there is fact in both of those contributing factors, that is taking a very rudimentary view on the matter, and one must analyse the statements from both sides in order to come to an understanding of this environmental issue.
The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa states that the economic contribution from trophy hunting is that of an exorbitant amount of R1.24 billion in 2012. The breakdown of this spend included expenses of airfares with SAA, transport within the country, ammunition, hunting gear, clothing, shipping costs and trophy handling, licenses and permits, additional tours and travel costs as well as their fee’s for their hunting trip and game killed.
Now one can see the monetary benefit for a country like South Africa from the figures stated, however there are a great deal of assumptions made in that figure; such as the statements that the hunters are buying their gear in South Africa and flying via South African Airways. Another contentious issue with this financial statement is that money is a satisfactory compensation for that of killing wildlife. An understanding of ethics is needed when conversing about this topic, as one would need to comprehend that money is not the only contributing factor to a successful nation. If job creation is one of the main justifications of canned hunting, then the figures of employment need to be considered of that of hunting lodges and that of game reserves. Hunting lodges typically employ between ten to twenty staff and game lodges between thirty to sixty, not to mention the fact that a live lion can bring in the same amount (plus some) as that of having it killed.
The assumption that this financial remuneration is one of the contributing factors to wildlife conservation is also another contentious issue, as that assumption has no basis in fact whatsoever. There is no satisfactory evidence of the monetary gains being fueled back into conservation in an adequate fashion.
The conservation defense put forward by the canned hunters has many different facets to it and the first one being that of reducing the risk of poachers. The argument for this is by making something legal it allows a means for people to gain what they want legally and not having to resort to illegal means and creating a market for poachers. If this was the only means possible to conserve a species then it should most definitely be looked at, however currently it is not the only means left to us to protect a myriad of species. This defense only supplies a means of simplifying things for poachers. A gunshot can be mistaken as a canned hunt when in fact it was the result of a poacher. It removes the alarmist from the ordeal and desensitizes people from the seriousness of the matter. Hunters are commonly lumped into either of two categories; those that want the trophy and those that want the hunt. If hunters are adamant about wanting the hunt; they will not be content with a canned hunt as those animals are not the wild satisfactory hunt they were after. Thus canned hunting does not dissuade those that they really need to be.
The other defense made by trophy hunters is; the money spent on permits etc. is fuelled right back into the conservation of the countries wildlife. Now let’s assume for arguments sake that this statement is 100% completely true, (which in many countries is not. Tanzania only receives 25 percent of hunting fees, and that goes back to the country for whatever spend) is this to say that, that amount is equal if not more to that of keeping the animals alive and gaining financial and environmental benefits that way? An interview done with villagers of Tanzania revealed the following regarding the effects of hunting the animals:
“We‘re more closely allied with the photographic operators than the hunters. They (the hunters) are finishing off the wildlife before we‘ve had a chance to realize a profit from it. Hunters don‘t recognize us; they only recognize the government 25 percent of hunting fees (that) goes into the “hole” at the district. We‘re supposed to get 5 percent- we don‘t even see that.” (Sachedina 2008, p152)
Canned Opener 