Sample Letter
When Writing Your Representative
Senator Henry Stern
Capitol Building, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
August 10, 2020
Dear Senator Stern,
Please accept our gratitude to you for authoring SB 1175, which reflects California values by protecting our planet’s iconic endangered species by reducing the incentive for trophy hunts, as well as protecting the health of humans and native wildlife. It has come to our attention that opponents to SB 1175 are casting aspersions that this legislation is racially biased. Their two-pronged argument states that trophy hunting unquestionably conserves endangered species and that local black communities are recipients of the economic fruits of trophy hunting. We are writing in rejection of those claims and to highlight why they are misguided.
- Does trophy hunting contribute positively to conservation of healthy, genetically robust populations of species?
In 2015 and 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Obama administration placed a prohibition on importation of trophies from several countries, including Zimbabwe, because their wildlife management programs were found to be insufficient. The findings by the USFWS were based on direct communication with the affected nations, although the hunting lobby insists that animal rights groups somehow had a hand in the decision. Despite the scientifically backed finding by the USFWS under the Obama administration, the Trump administration’s USFWS and it’s now defunct hunting trophy council rolled back that Obama-era policy, despite no new information being provided by the affected countries.
A recent International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) report stated, “Consumptive use (i.e. trophy hunting) of wildlife is far less promising than we thought and that should be taken into account in the role we assign to protected areas. This leads us directly to reviewing the choice of wildlife management categories.” A burgeoning amount of research shows that trophy hunting is an inferior conservation approach compared to non-consumptive methods and wreaks havoc on species’ gene pools in hunting areas. One study concluded, “A rapid decline in allelic richness after 1895 suggests the erosion of genetic diversity coincides with the rise of a European colonial presence and the outbreak of rinderpest in the region.”
The evidence shows that trophy hunting does not contribute to the conservation of healthy specie populations in Africa. Despite that alarming, yet unsurprising conclusion, we ask how local African communities are benefitting from trophy hunting.
- Do local black communities receive the economic fruits of trophy hunting?
The trophy hunting lobby, including the Safari Club and National Rifle Association, insists that the economic benefits of hunts flow down to the local communities where the hunts take place. Sadly, the evidence is to the contrary. A study by Economists at Large concluded,
“Our research indicates that trophy hunting contributions are in fact minimal. Authors from all sides of hunting and conservation debates agree that local communities are key stakeholders for conservation initiatives, yet they generally receive minimal benefits from trophy hunting. A study published by the pro-hunting International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation found that hunting operators in Tanzania contribute only 3% of their turnover to the communities that are affected by hunting. These calculations are supported by other authors and the conclusion that hunting contributes insufficiently to community development is widely acknowledged.”
Not only do local communities not reap the economic benefits of trophy hunting, but a recent study regarding African attitudes towards trophy hunting showed little support for the practice.
“The dominant pattern was resentment towards what was viewed as the neo-colonial character of trophy hunting, in the way it privileges Western elites in accessing Africa’s wildlife resources. Interestingly, trophy hunting was not objectionable from an animal rights perspective, but as a consequence of its complex historical and postcolonial associations. In addition, criticism was directed at African politicians who were perceived as allowing wildlife exploitation to satisfy their own greed. In this instance, far from tourism being a facilitator of intercultural understanding and peace, it appears to reproduce images and wounds of a colonial past.”
These attitudes are also reflected in policy, as Kenya has long banned trophy hunting within its borders and Botswana, until a recent change in administrations, banned trophy hunting. The ban in Botswana corresponded with an uptick in elephant populations.
Lastly, none of the above even considers the moral and ethical arguments against shooting and killing a magnificent, sentient being with little to no chance of escape. These animals deserve our respect and protection for their own sake, for our children’s sake, and for the health of our ecosystems. Thank you, again, for being a champion for wildlife. We hope your colleagues in the legislature will do the right thing and support SB 1175.