https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...ink&dm_campaign=main



ETHICAL CONSERVATION OP-ED
Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives — study

A groundbreaking new study reveals overwhelming opposition to trophy hunting among communities bordering the Kruger National Park, one of Africa’s most iconic wildlife reserves.

By Adam Cruise Follow 28 Jul 2025

The findings debunk the narrative that rural communities depend on trophy hunting to survive and instead highlight a growing desire for coexistence and respect for animal sentience.
A groundbreaking new study reveals overwhelming opposition to trophy hunting among communities bordering the Kruger National Park, one of Africa’s most iconic wildlife reserves. The research, recently published in the journal Biological Conservation, surveyed 1,551 households across 12 local communities, uncovering strong support for wildlife conservation and alternative, non-consumptive income opportunities.

Widespread support for conservation

According to the study, more than 95% of respondents agreed that “wildlife is part of our heritage, and we should protect it”, while 94% said they believe wild animals have intrinsic value and should not be killed for profit. A further 90% recognised the job-generating potential of wildlife conservation, challenging the long-standing narrative that trophy hunting is necessary for local livelihoods.

Researchers presented nonconsumptive income options to participants, such as:

Communal vegetable gardens;
Community-based craft tourism;
Ecosystem service payments;
Community-based storytelling and cultural tourism;
Ecosystem service payments (wildlife credits);
Payments for ecosystem services (land leasing);
Digital solutions (online tourism); and
Biodiversity stewardship (entering into agreements with private and communal landowners to protect and manage land in biodiversity priority areas).
Satisfaction rates for these alternatives ranged from 80% to 98%, indicating strong enthusiasm for sustainable economic development models that do not involve wildlife exploitation.


Trophy hunting under growing scrutiny

The findings come at a time of heightened global debate over the ethics and economics of trophy hunting. Proponents argue that it funds conservation and supports rural economies, while critics question its moral and ecological legitimacy as well as the perceived benefits to local communities.

While not permitted within the Kruger Park itself, trophy hunting in the Associated Private Nature Reserves, which share an unfenced border with the park, has been a longstanding and controversial practice. These privately owned reserves, including Timbavati, Klaserie and Balule, operate under agreements that allow hunting of iconic species like lions, elephants and leopards, often those that have crossed over from the Kruger Park.

This study offers a data-driven challenge to the notion that communities near wildlife reserves prefer hunting-based revenue, while accepting that hunting does provide some income to communities that requires replacement.

The study paints a stark picture of local economic conditions. Unemployment and poverty are widespread, with 68% of households relying on government grants. Only 34% of respondents reported earning wages, and just 12% were employed full-time. These harsh economic realities appear to drive support for nonconsumptive alternatives that promise income without sacrificing natural heritage.

These findings offer governments, policymakers and conservationists a blueprint for conservation that is both ethical and practical.

In 2023, more than 6,000 international hunters killed more than 34,000 animals in South Africa. These numbers reflect a system built on profit and entertainment for an elite few, not preservation. The study provides a timely intervention that reinforces calls to end this industry and replace it with humane alternatives.


Policymakers now have clear evidence that communities want change. Humane, community-led conservation is not just possible, it is preferred. Aligning national strategies with public sentiment can help restore South Africa’s reputation as a global conservation leader.

Nonconsumptive alternatives

One popular alternative emerging from the study is the proposed “lion levy” – a surcharge on international tourists that would fund wildlife conservation and support local communities. The idea received 85% approval from respondents, aligning with research showing that tourists are willing to pay such fees for ethical conservation.

The researchers advocate for implementing and closely monitoring nonconsumptive income programmes in selected communities. They also call for accompanying these efforts with educational initiatives and family planning services, aiming to reduce household sizes and further strengthen conservation support.

Dr Angie Elwin, head of research at World Animal Protection and co-author of the study, notes: “This research sends a clear signal that, when given a choice, communities favour a future where wildlife is protected and respected. The data dismantles the outdated narrative that communities need trophy hunting, instead revealing a growing desire to coexist with wildlife and benefit from its protection.”

Looking ahead

The study offers a hopeful vision for the future of conservation in South Africa. With overwhelming support from local communities for sustainable alternatives and wildlife protection, there is a clear opportunity to shift away from trophy hunting towards more ethical and inclusive models of development.


One of the authors of the study, Dr Herbert Ntuli of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, says: “These findings have far-reaching implications. They challenge long-standing assumptions and offer governments, policymakers and conservationists a blueprint for conservation that is both ethical and practical. With the right investments, humane, wildlife-friendly models, such as the proposed lion levy, can deliver real, lasting benefits for people, wildlife and future generations.”

This comes at a time when the South African government is attempting to roll out its National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES), which focuses heavily on consumptive use practices to benefit local communities. The NBES already faces criticisms of limited community involvement and inadequate enforcement of environmental regulations. While the strategy ostensibly aims to link biodiversity conservation with economic growth through sectors like ecotourism and bioprospecting, it struggles with balancing its strong adherence to commercial and consumptive uses. Furthermore, the unequal benefit-sharing with rural communities prevents its effective implementation and long-term success.

The findings in this study, then, expose a fundamental shift in local attitudes away from the government approach. They debunk the narrative that rural communities depend on trophy hunting to survive and instead highlight a growing desire for coexistence and respect for animal sentience.

By aligning conservation goals with economic needs, South Africa has a chance to lead the way in reconciling biodiversity preservation with community wellbeing – setting an example for conservation efforts around the world. DM

Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.

https://www.worldanimalprotect...eviewed-research.pdf



Link to study.

What a load of codswallop!

So you survey an area that is dependent on Photo tourism and not hunting, of course that's the response you will get. If the respondent's income was dependent on Hunting, the answer would be different. "Junk Social Science."

While I agree. The mere fact of declaring the “study” lies, junk science, cooked books, etc is not an argument.

We need real numbers, real science, not conclusionary statements to rebut.

Good point, LHeym, but I'm not scientist nor anywhere near there to do such work, and suspect that applies to most of our membership.

I find that survey hard to believe, however, thinking of farmers with properties bordering Australian national parks. The ones I've spoken to hate the NPs, claiming they are the source of all sorts of animal-and-plant pests coming on to their land.

As Wesheltonj suggested, it may be that many of the people surveyed either had economic links with Kruger Park or were animalarians who had moved into the area to be nearer its beautiful, often-tamer critters.

I understand that. However, this is the failure of our lobbying organizations over here and professional organizations over there.

Ducks Unlimited does a much better job of getting data, good and bad, synthesized out to its members. Data from actual biological experts.

This continued, all applied, and non-critical:

Trophy Hunting pays
Kill a few to save all
We pay for anti poaching

bullet point approach is not going to rebut the type of material that was posted.

People are not going to believe our conclusionary state just because we say them.

About a decade ago Sports Afield published a Flyer from an African Professional Hunter’s Organization about where every dollar from a generic leopard safari went. This was much better. If not a little generic.

I have often argued that to display at the major conventions an outfitter needs to provide an accounting of how the revenue from game hunted is used to directly affect out stated goals:

Habit Conservation/Expansion,
Herd Stability or species stability w/in hunting area (numbers, health, age diversity),
Anti poaching
Responsibility rural development,
And
Employment.

A) This helps ensure a standard of conservation that is what we are all suppose to be about, transparency to members/consumers, and transparency for critical review.

No, if you are raising crocs in a paddock, and realizing them to a water hole to be shot on order you do not get to present. Folks woukd know more upfront what we are buying. We would also have data, even if it was industry generated.

Our organizations and our ethos is Conservation. The tool is hunting, killing. When your rake does not accomplish the above, you need to go somewhere else. That is not necessarily bad or negative. It simply is.

Look at the Lion debate that is still going. I’m in the camp that the issue is not whether the Lion is 5. The issue is does he hold a pride. If as an industry, a profession we cannot verify that the lion is not holding a pride. Then we need to think about our hunting of lions overall.

Ultimately, the goal is peer reviewed, non-funded by the industry science that says, “Yes, this limited killing is not only sustainable, but beneficial.”

That our organizations can synthesize down into numbers, provide to us, and have tangible data to refute with.

Until then, I would be greatful w such research funded by our organizations w major university, serious scientists/biologist.

NOAA does a better job of this education as to the regulation w fishing in the U.S. I’m not saying perfect, far from it, but better.

Without these things, we are not making arguments. We are just talking.

You have identified something useful. Taking what you have colloquially observed and applying professional observation and method of recording is exactly what is needed. That can then be argued. However, it is the information in that we need and the vehicle of obtaining it.