A review of the ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of trophy hunting across Asia

Abstract

The continuing debates about trophy hunting should be underpinned by an understanding of at least the basic characteristics of the practice (e.g. species, quotas, areas, prices). Whilst many countries in Asia have established trophy hunting programmes of considerable importance to conservation and local livelihoods, there remains some ambiguity over the extent of trophy hunting in Asia as its basic characteristics in each country have not been compiled. In this study, we compile information on various ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of trophy hunting of mammals for countries across Asia by reviewing published and unpublished literature, analysing trade data, and obtaining contributions from in-country contacts. Across Asia, established trophy hunting programmes exist in at least 11 countries and target at least 30 species and one hybrid (incl., five Vulnerable and one Endangered species). Trophy hunting in these countries varies markedly in areas (e.g. >1 million km 2 in Kazakhstan, 37% of country, vs. 1325 km 2 in Nepal, <1% of country) and annual offtakes (e.g. Kazakhstan: 4500 individuals from 4 of 5 trophy species; Pakistan: 229 from 4 of 7; Mongolia: 155 from 6 of 9; Tajikistan: 126 from 3 of 6; Nepal: 22 from 3 of the 4 that are trophy hunted in practice). Permit prices also vary across species and countries, with domestic and international hunters sometimes charged different rates. Hunters from the USA appear overwhelmingly prominent among international clients. National legislations typically mandate a proportion of trophy hunting revenue to accrue locally (range: 40-100%). We provide five key recommendations for research to inform trophy hunting policy in Asia: (1) Ecological impact assessments;(2) Socioeconomic impact assessments; (3) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to conservation spending; (4) Evaluations of the contributions of trophy hunting to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework; (5) Further examinations of perceptions of trophy hunting.

Animal behavior informed by history: Was the Asiatic cheetah an obligate gazelle hunter?

“…Our work revealed selective hunting of adult male (> 4 years) urials and bezoar goats, which is in accordance with previous observations of prey sex selectivity by cheetahs in central Iran [ 80 ] as well as Africa [ 63 , 81 ] Antipredator vigilance, which is more common in females and their young among mountain wild sheep and goats [ 37 , 82 ], is a possible explanation for apparent male-selective predation by Asiatic cheetahs. Given the similar male-skewed predation by other large carnivores in west and central Asia, such as grey wolf Canis lupus [ 83 ] and leopard Panthera pardus [ 37 , 84 ], understanding the effects of multi-predator predation on recruitment and survival of ungulates, particularly in areas with running trophy hunting is recommended [ 85 ].…”

Economics of conservation law enforcement by rangers across Asia

“…The second source of rangers in Asia originates from the trophy hunting industry, with rangers hired locally by conservancies and hunting concessions; this occurs in a few countries, particularly in central Asia (Table S1). Given that the ranger density in all these countries is lower than the continental median, the trophy hunting industry appears to provide an additional source of revenue for these understaffed countries (Parker et al., 2022), although it is the focus of both ethical and ecological concerns (Zhou et al., 2021).…”

Evaluating key evidence and formulating regulatory alternatives regarding the UK’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

“…More evidence is needed on the potential impacts of the bill, but it could reduce revenue for conservation areas that depend on such hunting to support management, including law enforcement and anti-poaching efforts, and thereby mitigate other threats to species and habitats. It could have a negative, even devastating, impact on Indigenous people and local communities who rely on legal hunting for trophies for monetary and/or nonmonetary benefits (e.g., cash income, meat and employment) (IUCN 2016a, Angula et al 2018, Parker et al 2023. Benefits to local communities vary (e.g., 0-100% of revenue generated) but are frequently very important to them (IUCN 2016a).…”

“…Conversely, evidence indicates that in diverse circumstances across several continents, legal and well-managed hunting for trophies can deliver benefits to local people and support conservation by ensuring that biodiversity is a competitive land use option (IUCN 2016a, Parker et al 2023. Nevertheless, various governments have legislated against the trade in hunting trophies since 2015.…”