After an animal has sired several dozen cubs/calves over the years, the tens of thousands of dollars from his trophy fee will go a long way in preserving his progeny’s habitat so they’re around for people to take pictures of.

Are you prepared to tell some desperately poor African trying to feed his kids that he cannot be a hide skinner because you think trophy hunting is unethical and irresponsible?

It personally doesn’t appeal to me, but I don’t think it’s right to tell somebody to adopt my moral code, ethics, religion etc. Those are personal decisions that shouldn’t be the sole basis for a public policy that affects everyone.

The facts are pretty plain. Photo safaris help create local revenue and jobs in Africa. Hunting helps a bit more, plus it helps maintain habitat that would otherwise turn into farming. Is that so wrong?

The WWF makes it quite clear in the article you reference that, “WWF urges that for threatened or endangered species, all other conservation incentives and activities be fully explored before considering hunting them for trophies.”

I think a concerted strategy of economic development for rural areas combined with alternative conservation approaches (other than trophy hunting) for endangered species is a better approach.

The argument that trophy hunting provides jobs in the form of trackers, skinners, etc. is not a valid argument by itself. There are plenty of other jobs that have become obsolete due to progress (think telegraph operator or milkman); I see no reason why “elephant hide skinner” shouldn’t be added to that list.

My point is that it is unethical and an irresponsible action as stewards of our natural resources for future generations to hunt, as trophies, animals that are threatened or endangered.

It is true that hunters spend much more per person than photographers on safari. It’s also true that hunting enhances conservation in areas where photo safaris can’t or won’t go. Hunting’s overall impact in Africa seems positive.

However, the assertion that total revenue from hunting is greater than for photography is incorrect. I found the following in an even-handed academic study in 2006. The study supports much of what you wrote — except for the total revenue claim (sorry for the long link).

Biological Observation
http://www.africanwildlifeconservationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Economic-and-conservation-significance.pdf

“Photographic ecotourism undoubtedly generates greater gross revenues than trophy hunting in Africa, and where large numbers of tourists visit, employment opportunities for local people can be higher than from hunting. For example, Tanzanian National Parks receive US$11 million/year from photo- graphic tourism just from the Serengeti and Ngorongoro Conservation Area, whereas the Tanzanian Wildlife Division receives only US$10.5 million/year from hunting throughout Tanzania (Thirgood et al., 2006). However, hunting revenues are significant because they enable wildlife production to be a viable land use across a wider range of land uses than would be possible relying on revenues from photographic ecotour- ism.”

I’m sorry if it seems I’m belaboring a point, but I couldn’t let it rest.