Cecil the Lion, killed in Zimbabwe in July by Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer, was not just any lion. But there is a deeper story behind this than the emotional response to the killing of a magnificent wild animal. The story demonstrates the many fallacies behind arguments that trophy hunting is good for conservation.
This debate matters.
In a little over a year, South Africa will argue at international treaty negotiations that countries should legalize international trade for its rhinoceros and some of its ivory. When it does, it will rely on many of the same arguments that claim trophy hunting is good for conservation of endangered species.
Supporters of trophy hunting claim it can fuel interest in conservation and redirect pressure away from poaching toward legal sources. The idea is that increasing legal supply will decrease the price of illegally obtained animal parts so that illegal traders will get out of the business.
Yet, with all his financial resources, Palmer would have been able to kill an African lion without any legal ambiguity, well within the law of many African countries and the United States. Instead, he and his guides chose to go to private land next to a protected area and use an animal carcass to lure a lion out of that protected land before they killed it.
The case is surrounded with legal ambiguity. Palmer is just one data point in a large body of evidence that suggests that legal trade may fuel illegal activity. Buyers sometimes even pay a premium for illegally sourced specimens.
Trophy hunting is supposed to raise money for communities and governments to help conservation. However, much of that money ends up going to private parties who guide the hunting or who run the ranches that breed these endangered species.
Palmer reportedly paid around $50,000 to his guide, Theo Bronkhorst, and the landowner, Honest Ndlovu. Before the investigation, they were probably not planning to give that money away. When governments do get some money from fees and permits, little of it is given to local communities or used for habitat protection. Even if used for conservation, it is often diverted to police the boundaries between legal and illegal killing.
Can trophy hunting nevertheless help careful conservation? No. Palmer may not have been specifically targeting Cecil, but it is highly likely he wanted to kill a big male lion. According to Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Cecil’s death will likely lead to the overthrow of other males in the group and the killing of Cecil’s cubs. This is how lion society works and is not inherently bad. But this species is endangered. If large male lions are the main target of trophy hunters, this recurrent disruption presents a problem.
Supporters of trophy hunting like to condemn their detractors as emotional, arguing that trophy hunting can be a rational response to a conservation crisis. This ignores the fact that strong demand for trophy hunting changes the way we view the species. African lions are bred in South Africa to be hunted as trophies even though they are barely wild. Species bred for trophy hunting or legal trade may become very different from the species we know today. Although trade in animal parts and trophy hunting are not the primary threat for many species, they change the relationship we have with those species. The fury over Cecil’s killing demonstrates that we still value what is wild and unfarmed.
For endangered species, small risks matter. Cecil the lion’s killing shows that the risks of allowing trophy hunting and legal trade outweigh the optimistic assumptions that support it.
Annecoos Wiersema is a professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law with special expertise in International Wildlife Law. Contact her at awiersema@law.du.edu.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
