Hunt Elephants to Save Them? Some Countries See No Other Choice

What's necessary is a unilateral moratorium on Ivory - observed and enforced by every country on Earth. Once the demand is gone (or so significantly diminished), so the poachers will have less of a reason to kill. China has made great strides, as did the Obama administration, when many tons of Ivory were burned. No more piano keys, guitar bridges, knife handles, statuettes - nothing should be made of ivory anymore. The legal Ivory trade is simply too good a cover for the illegal ivory trade.

This reminds me of something some higher-up or other said about destroying a village during the Vietnam war: we destroyed it in order to save it. Human thinking and behaviour is sometimes inscrutable.

it looks quite bizarre on the face of it. If hunting is the only way to garner funds for conservation, it is really sad. Tomorrow if human population goes beyond a limit in some region, should we go for mass killing? The Zimbabwe government should look at other better options. Even those who consider wildlife and conservation to be important can contribute funds. After all the affluent all over the world waste so much resources (i.e. money) for their whims and fancies. If they give a little from that for such activities, it would suffice. Only lip service is not enough. Making tourism more attractive will also bring more revenues. I am not aware of the tourism facilities there. But in other poor/developing nations it is really poor. For example in India, it is not easy to reach various wildlife destinations. Infrastructure like roads, transport, boarding and lodging etc. are insufficient and at times poor. security is another factor and the facilities for sighting the wildlife are always short of expectations. If things are improved, more tourists will arrive and automatically revenue generation will grow. Also, selective sterilization of elephants can be tried to keep a check on fast growth of population.

Hunting elephants to conserve them is like cutting down a tree to celebrate Earth day. It is our responsibility as human animals to protect nonhuman animals.

What a strangely convoluted argument. It completely misses the part that 'trophy hunting' often kills the most majestic animals, many of whose numbers are plummeting. Elephants rely on their older and wiser members to teach young elephants vital survival skills, like finding water holes during the time of year when it is very dry and finding water is critical for survival. But hunters want the 'biggest and the best', the one with the longest tusks, which correlates with those members of the elephants families to its older, more experienced members. When that vital link in the elephant families is missing, younger members will not have the life experience to survive severe weather conditions. And as in a human family, elephants grieve at the loss of one of their members, it has a deep effect on the members of the elephant’s family which survive. Also, there is no mention of growing human populations in Africa, predicted in the next several decades to add a billion or more new human beings, which means more encroachment on critical habitat where animals have lived often for millennia. Killing other sentient beings for sport is a kind of sickness. One of the very few things Trump got right - and there is no telling how his pendulum will swing on this issue in the future - is that it is 'a horror show'.

I know SO MANY people who donate generously to conservation organizations. I know people who have paid thousands of dollars to go on photo-safaris in Africa. I find it highly dubious that the money raised by a few trophy hunting permits cannot be replaced by the donations of millions of people across the world. Check out the reports on the page linked below, for a rebuttal to Dr. Muposhi's statements in this article. http://www.hsi.org/issues/trophy_hunting/facts/facts-about-trophy-huntin...

This topic enrages me, thus I assume my earlier comment will not be posted, as it was too violent. Nonetheless, I can't see hunting elephants as being useful in saving them. People who want to shoot large animals really just need to get extensive therapy to overcome whatever childhood abuse is causing them to act so violently. What places with elephants should do is have photo safaris, where people can be taken around to take pictures of endangered animals, so that they can show them to their grandchildren to explain what these animals used to be. Because in two more generations, at this rate, there won't be any elephants in Africa. And then I'd like to do all sorts of horrible atrocities to poachers, but like I say, that stuff won't get printed.

I am simply appalled at the thought of allowing these majestics animals to be taken as trophies, and to hunt them to save them is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. These creatures must simply be protected. Period. There are too few of them left. We should be promoting habitat to allow them to survive and thrive. Trophy hunting is barbaric and to people who do it for some thrill sport, shame, shame shame on you. You'll never convince me otherwise. It is my fervent hope to one day travel to Africa to see these beautiful animals in their wild habitat. I will fight hunting of these animals until my dying breath.

Not only is trophy hunting of endangered species unsustainable, but so are economies based on trophy hunting endangered species. If Ms. Nuwer is concerned about healthy economies in Africa she might consider the historical and current effects of colonialism and globalization, resource extraction, other industries and our investments that displace people from their lands and livelihoods, poison their waters, exploit their labour, pay few or no taxes as well as the punishing trade agreements that quash homegrown industry and our role in climate change. If Ms. Nuwer is concerned about elephants and other endangered species, then hitching her economic wagon to killing them as they swiftly decline and disappear makes no sense. We know that animals are sentient beings, that they are far more valuable fully alive than dead. They are not here to bolster our Egos, they are not here for our twisted psycho-sexual gratification, nor are they here for our unsustainable and destructive economies. Humans now take up be one third of the world’s biomass, our livestock almost two-thirds, and wild animals between only two and five percent! We are losing our fellow travelers along with all the Wonder, Knowledge and Humility they can teach us. So stop the spin. To you, Illustrious Editor of NYT Science, surely there are lines you should not cross. Would you have a similar article on using primates, including humans, for research? Or the importance of a slave economy?

While Zimbabwes program might be working now...its not guaranteed. If a new leadership comes in and decides not to care - then what? Look at whats going on with Trump here. Out of nothing but beligerence to Obama, or tradition, or regulation his Admin is preparing to tear thru and tear up various conservation zones, and landmarks, etc. All for greed. All for short term gain. It takes generational perseverance to make these programs not just work, but last long enough to truly protect these animals and their complex environments. Mankind tends to always screw these efforts up.

The problem with this "debate" is that it omits the critical moral dimension. We are supposed to accept that the atrocity of "trophy hunting" is justified if it potentially raises money for conservation? What if we allowed men to pay $100,000 for permission to beat their wives provided the money goes to organizations combatting domestic violence? Isn't this like "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson? In that story, intended as a moral cautionary tale, a town kills one person each year, picked by lottery, in order to ensure a successful harvest. I don't care how much conservation is funded by it-murdering elephants and keeping their body parts as trophies is deeply wrong and degrades our own humanity. Also, I have to believe that there are a lot more people that want to help elephants rather than slaughter them. For that reason, it would seem that a different kind of fundraising effort and focus could be equally or more successful.

These animals are gravely endangered. They should be protected from all forms of hunting, poaching, etc. Trophy Hunting is NOT the answer. There are a number of organizations working to protect elephants, and to raise the offspring of elephants killed by poachers: www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org

Trophy hunting does NO good. It is only the MONEY from trophy hunting that does any good. So let's GIVE these countries that money! The problem is that they are poor. But the loss of elephants is the problem of the whole world. You don't have to be a conservationist to know that any member of an endangered species (read elephants) killed is a tragic loss; any child can figure this out. (why can't you?) Of course poaching is the biggest problem and trophy hunting down on the list; it is illegal most places. Anyone who kills an elephant is sick and depraved. Any country which allows trophy hunting (read US) is similarly sick and depraved.

There is a first question here that doesn't enter the conversation. The debate is centered around the aftereffects of killing elephants. I wish to submit the first question. If one, anyone, enjoys killing for sport, do we, or should we, encourage that? I will argue that killing for sport-fun-the thrill of the hunt is a behavior/attitude that we cannot afford to either encourage or reward. Hunting for food, whether for yourself or others is not hunting for sport. Even if hunting for sport ends up giving food to others, it is that desire that can only be fulfilled by killing that endangers, demeans us as a species. If one wishes to enjoy the thrill of the hunt, capturing a wild animal in its natural setting, fine. Do it with a camera. For me, killing for fun, for sport, is a mind set I cannot grasp, much less encourage or tolerate. So when we debate killing elephants or lions or leopards, let us first ask the question as to whether it is a good idea for us to reward anyone wanting to fulfill a desire that can only be sated by the death of others.

Great article and to me unbiased. Gives both arguments for/against hunting

Once again the issue of trophy hunting raises it ugly head. First, despite some statistics quoted here, generally speaking trophy hunting is not a financial boon to countries. Most money is not spent on alleviation of problems facing wildlife. Second, elephants form strong social families and groups led by the older more experienced members. Trophy hunting shifts the burden the leading families to younger elephants that are less experienced. Third, trophy hunting is cruel-hunting is a cruel sport. Elephants have social and emotional life that exceed most of our imaginations. They are sentient, feeling beings who care for extended family members and even engage in moral conduct. The whole concept of trophy is repugnant. Read Dr. Carl Safrina's books on animal intelligence.

Trophy hunting is just not an option. It keeps the trade in ivory, animal hides, and other products of killing endangered species going. There's no point in it, and people who want to go kill large animals with guns should be given rigorous therapy to work on their mental illness, most of which probably stems from childhood abuse. There are other ways to try to save endangered large mammals, and Mali has got one program going: they guard the few elephants they have left, and in the months since they started, not one elephant has been killed by poachers. Other options include getting funding from taking people on photo safaris, where they can photograph the endangered large mammals we still have left. Lots of people would pay a good deal to get personal photos of elephants and such, so they can show their grandkids what elephants were. Lastly, for the hunters, places with poacher problems can legalize and initiate poacher-hunting safaris. The most dangerous game is man, right? So let hunters hunt poachers, and use their fees to save endangered species, and you get the best possible course of action.

The reason it only works in some countries is purely due to lack of corruption. In countries with some or extensive corruption, the money from trophy hunting is not used for the protection of wildlife. Since the vast majority of countries in Africa are struggling with corruption, trophy hunting is not even remotely a solution. Additionally, there is scientific evidence that trophy hunting, in most cases, weakens the species (the biggest and best specimens are prematurely removed). A recent publication in Nature (if memory servers correctly) indicated that even a proportionally small harvest of prime specimens has an adverse effect on the gene pool. For both these reasons, trophy hunting is more likely to harm than to help.

Why don't we allow hunters to kill a certain number of poor people (or disabled or rich) every year? The fees can be used to help other poor people (or disabled or rich). What's the difference between this and killing endangered animals? Only that the human population isn't endangered and probably could use a good culling.

Brilliant! We have a solution to the children's health insurance program (CHIP) that has not been extended by the Republican controlled Congress .... have Congress offer a splendid solution, put bounties on the heads of US children, allow trophy hunters to "harvest" several thousand each year, use those hunting fees to pay for health insurance for children who survive the hunt.

Hoping this one posts... The program works in Zimbabwe...but is it guaranteed thru perpetuity? Will a new govt leadership take the preservation seriously, or see a thing to exploit? Revenues they should control and dole out as they see fit? Look at whats going on this country with the Trump Admin, and how they are on the verge of letting resource exploitation agents take control of pristine, and struggling eco systems. The beligerence of this Admin to conservation and preservation is going to become a role model for places where such efforts are always barely holding on. Its gonna be hard to sell more conservation over seas, when we're gonna be gutting our own past efforts for no good reasons but resource lust, and serving Corp interests. I favor absolute preservation of these eco systems, and its not just for the elephants, but for all the flora and fauna...but its not as simple a thing as some make it out to be. We cant just focus on the cute elephants...but the whole system, which does include humans.

I find it odd, if not incongruent, that President Trump "referred to trophy hunting as a “horror show” and cast doubts on its effectiveness for helping conservation of elephants and other species" when his two sons, Donald, Jr. and Eric, hunted trophy elephants and leopards in Zimbabwe (as stated in the 3/18/17 NYT article, "Donald Trump, Jr. Is His Own Kind of Trump"). Does he not recognize or acknowledge that his sons hunt and mount their kill? How is it that he appears to care more about saving wildlife in Zimbabwe than saving and securing protected federal land in this U.S.?

Trophy hunting claiming it funds the preservation of wildlife is akin to Bill Cosby claiming that his sexual predation was intended to raise sexual harassment awareness. The truth is that even the most dumb-as-bricks trophy hunters understand that there won't be enough animals for them to shoot without breeding/protection/conservation programs and that they have a huge PR problem - their motives are not altruistic at all. The hunting tour operators also know that they need to funnel some proceeds into conservation, at very least because they know they're on very shaky ground. Shooting near-endangered or endangered animals for any reason is morally reprehensible. Stop the shooting. Stop the poaching.

Elephants are intelligent, self-aware animals, capable of passing the mirror-test (recognizing themselves in the mirror). How is killing an elephant not a murder? Imagine a serial killer who hunts two-year-olds, cuts off their heads and decorates his home with them. Wouldn’t you call him a monster? And yet an elephant is more intelligent and self-aware than an average toddler. Though a vegetarian, I do not believe that all animal lives are equally valuable. If I were starving, I would cook and eat a dog or a cat because their brain capacity is insufficient to sustain a human-like self-awareness. But an elephant or a dolphin? Never.

The commenters who abhor hunting need to provide viable alternative suggestions for protecting the vast regions elephants and other large animals need. Photographic tourism is central to conservation in Africa, but requires relatively small areas, good roads, good security, and comfortable lodges. If trophy hunting is no longer an acceptable means for protecting the little remaining habitat from human development, we need new sources of funds and manpower to keep the elephants from being poached, the lions from being poisoned, and everything else from being eaten by hungry people. Warm sentiments about animals are very nice but have thus far produced no solutions to the human factors decimating the little wildlife that is left.

These animals live, eat, sleep, even procreate, in the presence of humans who pay to ride around on open trucks watching and talking and taking photos. I’ve had 450 pound lions and 200 pound leopards walk past me, well within 20 feet, while observing from such a vehicle. I have photos of elephants identical to the one from the Sabi Sands Reserve shown in the article. Just as close. They know our voices, our scents, our looks and they are used to us. In that context there is no real “hunting” going on. It’s a cull of surplus animals (more that the environment can sustain) and the “hunters” who want some glory, or sense of accomplishment, are just plain lying to themselves and the rest of us. If it’s necessary then do it, but call it what it is.

I find it interesting that the comparable situations in the US do not receive attention. It is clear that deer hunting in the Eastern US is part of a sustainable process. Does it involve killing animals for sport? Yes. Does it produce income for local communities and motivate some land owners to maintain habitat used by other wildlife? Yes. Does it probably improve local wildlife conservation, maintenance of green spaces and corridors, and yet draw ire and anger from many people who otherwise share goals? Yes. To me this is much the same. It is very hard to tell what is best for conservation of a species on a distant continent. But what is kind to the individual and what is beneficial to the species are sometimes different and we can't decide how to make those decisions at home much less in a more complex, less familiar environement.

Never heard anything so ridiculous. As Robin Williams once said, "It's like putting gauze in front of a semi and telling them to come on through." Why must all our 'solutions' involve guns and killing? The only endanger species should be trophy hunters.

Require trophy hunters to care for orphaned/injured/displaced elephants in the hope that they might acquire at least a modicum of empathy for what they desire to destroy.

I wish Tarzan were still here to lead a thundering herd of rampaging elephants through the Rose Garden.

Who are these people who viscerally enjoy killing a magnificent animal, not for food/survival, but for their selfish pleasure? What is their psychology? Why are they accepted like this? Why can they not shoot only pictures, tour the wilderness, and donate large fees toward habitat and species conservation? Why do they need to kill these animals in return for large fees and donations?

How about creative solutions to supporting these economies that don't involve murdering animals? Not even a consideration?

Where is Bill Gate and his charity organisation? What is a few tens of million for him? I am sure we can do without the killing and promote just the exhibition of elephants to bring in sustainable revenues.

---- “No one is coming to the table to say, ‘Yes, we want you to stop this hunting, but here is a budget and an alternative plan you can follow instead.’” ---- Well, why not?

Wow ! I can actually side with President Trump on one thing. "Trophy" hunting is a vulgar concept. We should have gone way beyond hanging heads of animals in our homes as signs of our prowess. If we were to take any of the animals on in "hand-to-hand" combat there will not be many trophy hunters.

Why not work out an agreement with the countries that cannot afford to manage their own wildlife preserves to have the United Nations or some other international agency (subject to independent audit) manage the preserves?

In the advent of a world without circus elephants and reductions in zoos we will see a world that hardly knows what an elephant is. Humans can barely care about what is actually around them let along about some 'idea' of a large wild creature thousands of miles away from them. When children see elephants at the zoo and especially performing in the circus, with big smiles on their faces, a daisy chain of trunks and tails.. they care.. at that instant. Oh well, thank you PETA.. and all the rest of people who couldn't understand the reality of animals interacting with humans are oftentimes positive.. we put leashes on dogs you know, keep them from roaming in their natural state.. ? but everyone flipped out that trainers did the same with elephants. oh well

Whenever man puts his hand in thinking we're the solution to nature's balance we're not. Cut the China/Asia trade. The ivory trade and animal parts market needs balancing. Serious financial ruin for buyers and poachers maybe prison as well.

People who live there need to see a benefit from preserving such animals as lions and elephants. These animals are dangerous to residents and prevent the locals from bettering their lives and their children's lives. They need to see some benefit from preserving them such as is provided by rich trophy hunters- at least in places where the hunts are well managed. Why should every elephant get a safe life when cattle and chickens are not safe. Nor are people and migrating birds. Where are the priorities of the sentimental so-called conservationists? What's their plan to make this sustainable? And I am a traveler but I wouldn't consider a photographic safari. I'm not a hunter either.

"In a 39-page report, the agency cited Zimbabwe’s progress in creating a sound management plan for its 82,000 elephants and evidence that hunting revenue is in fact reinvested into conservation" That's still Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I doubt there was anything near a 'sound management plan' implemented. More like the 'sound payoff plan.'

Shooting an animal to cut it die and then cut its head off and put it on a wall is just plain cruel and stupid. It's an activity that only appeals to cruel and stupid people. Who also happen to be rich.

Exactly, Tony. This paragraph could just as easily read "Even where this conservation strategy seems to work, the fact that it is counter-intuitive on the surface means that some critics refuse to accept it, despite objective evidence."

This is nonsense! I love the excuses of the hunters and their money-makers who enable this. Is there really anything or anyone that humans won't kill if they can pocket a status symbol or money? These creatures have been destroyed due to stupid policies like this with "management" as the goal. Perhaps, we should consider how to learn from our fellow creatures rather than see them as a product for human consumption! This is despicable.

Why can't the hunters hunt each other? Much better sport!

Wow, what an ignorant article. All the mentions of Zimbabwe and not one mention of Mugabe? This nonsense about people needing trophy hunting to survive is just garbage. What people have really needed in Zimbabwe is a government that meets their needs without corruption. Do that, and the "need" for trophy hunting will no longer be an issue. Maybe the author should learn a little of Zimbabwe's history to place trophy hunting in a larger context.

Technology can satisfy the rich guys who want to kill things for sport. How about a bot version of "The Most Dangerous Game?" try to keep them away from civilized society as long as possible.

The idea that this subject is even up for discussion and evaluation speaks to the absolute debasement of humanity we've come to. Elephants are a highly evolved animal with a social structure and emotions and feelings just like us; they have families - fathers, mothers, sons, brothers, sisters, aunts... If we find this perfectly justifiable - to shoot at random and kill a living soul whose family will wail in pain and live in sorrow for decades to come - the day isn't far when the Hunger Games will be a reality and it will be just ok to shoot people from a certain class, for 'gaming'. How's that??? Why don't we just starting culling the human population - one that is the most detrimental species to the existence of this earth and all others?

The primary conservation benefits of well-managed trophy hunting do not lie in the money earned for conservation. Rather, they lie in habitat protected from human encroachment. Elephants and other large animals need huge areas for their seasonal movements, but the exploding human population of Africa is rapidly covering former wildlife range with farms and cattle. When people move in, the antelopes are strangled in snares and eaten, the predators are poisoned, and the elephants are poached for their ivory. Photographic tourism requires relatively little land but trophy hunting requires vast wilderness. Local people eliminate wildlife if they earn no money from it. National wildlife authorities have no interest in wildlife that earns no income, so they ignore everything except profitable parks -they have no reason to fight either meat or ivory poaching outside tourism areas, and those animals quickly disappear: Kenya has lost 80% of its wildlife since the hunting ban forty years ago. Thus, rather than focusing on the income for conservation produced by sustainable legal hunting, the discussion should focus on land protected for wildlife. The loss of a small number of old males to trophy hunters protects large landscapes for all the fauna and flora that cannot survive human development. Of course, proper and transparent sustainable management is key. No conservation works if authorities are corrupt and the professional hunters interested only in short term profits.

"In a 39-page report, the agency cited Zimbabwe’s progress in creating a sound management plan for its 82,000 elephants and evidence that hunting revenue is in fact reinvested into conservation." "In other countries, including Zimbabwe, authorities have simply seized hunting preserves and reaped the profits without reinvesting in conservation, according to Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of 'The Extinction Market.'" Which is it? Is Zimbabwe reinvesting in conservation?

A well done article Ms. Nuwer. Indeed, if the goal is long-term conservation of elephants and their habitat, the discussion of trophy hunting is not the correct conversation. Trophy hunting can contribute to conservation if done correctly and it can have the opposite impact if done poorly. Regardless, its impacts pale in comparison to habitat degradation and human-wildlife conflict. Land management and ivory trafficking are the long and medium term keys to elephant conservation in Africa; and both are fundamentally issues of sustainable development. Tackling ivory trafficking solely with law enforcement is akin to the same with drug trafficking - and we all know how successful that has been. And tackling land management reform through the current political processes in Africa is - how shall we say it? - "challenging."

While I find this article useful in its comparative approach, I wonder if in our analysis of Wildlife hunting and conservation in Africa, we are ignoring the long-term historical processes of colonialism, post-colonialism and uneven development that leave African communities in the unenviable position of having to make these choices.

Every elephant is a special gift. Your specious, situational ethics and economics disgust me. it is simply -- let there be safety for elephants everywhere.

Ms. Pepper is incorrect in saying that "any trophy hunting of an endangered species is by definition unsustainable, as it cannot sufficiently contribute to the survival of the species to justify removing individuals from the population." Sufficiently high prices for the legal hunting of an endangered species (especially age-restricted) create large incentives for land owners to raise such species.