Trophy hunting in the greater Kruger area — what the study overlooks

Daily Maverick

a day ago

Trevor Oertel is 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. He has served under various ministers of Environmental Affairs on the Minister's Wildlife Forum.
A recent study published in Biological Conservation Vol 309, September 2025, and amplified by Adam Cruise in Daily Maverick claims that communities near Kruger National Park reject trophy hunting and that alternative livelihood options should be explored ('Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives — study', 28 July 2025).
Yet the very same study simultaneously acknowledges the conservation and economic benefits that trophy hunting has delivered in southern Africa for decades.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
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 that 'public pressure could end trophy hunting of wildlife, potentially negatively affecting species conservation and the human communities that depend upon the revenue hunting generates'.
This is not an insignificant point. In fact, it is perhaps the most important finding in the study, though the authors treat it as a side note.
But who is driving that public pressure?
Animal rights ideology
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 socioeconomic 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 animals and their habitats, and generated revenue for landholders and communities.
A prominent example of this group is World Animal Protection (WAP), a multimillion-pound UK-based animal rights group that has consistently lobbied against all forms of hunting, including regulated and sustainable hunting.
Besides the study that Cruise cites being funded by WAP, it fails to clearly disclose up front 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 (the authors' biographies are disclosed in hyperlinks, not in an up-front disclaimer).
When those crafting the questions, framing the data and interpreting the findings are aligned with an organisation 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 also 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.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
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.
Deeper issue
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 explaining how they would incentivise conservation in any way.
Hunting alongside photographic tourism aligns livelihoods with managing wildlife and its 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 incentivises 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.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
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, who is well known for his opposition to trophy hunting. In this instance, Cruise's tone borders on celebratory.
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 sociopolitical 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.
advertisement
Don't want to see this? Remove ads
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. DM