Does hunting benefit wildlife conservation?

Considerable debate surrounds whether hunting, especially “trophy” hunting, benefits wildlife conservation (eg Hare et al. 2023). Although hunting has adversely impacted some species historically and currently, we contend that hunting can also benefit wildlife conservation, defined here as the long-term, sustainable maintenance of wildlife species and their habitat. We suggest broadly that hunting supports wildlife conservation when the long-term benefits to wildlife exceed the long-term costs thereof.

Hunting benefits wildlife conservation in several ways, one of which is by reducing land-use change. When land is conserved primarily for hunting and is not substantially altered for other uses (eg crop or livestock agriculture, human development), hunting can facilitate the protection of land and the biodiversity and ecosystem processes therein. Another way is by reducing wildlife hyperabundance. The harvest of individuals from populations that exceed ecological carrying capacity can offset the impacts of overherbivory by some ungulate species and corresponding loss of plant biodiversity (Reed et al. 2022). Hunting also has the potential to limit disease transmission or disease prevalence. For example, the prevalence of chronic wasting disease in mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) was reduced after increased harvests of male deer (Conner et al. 2021).

In addition, by funding anti-poaching efforts, hunting can help to reduce illegal harvests of wildlife. In parts of Africa, anti-poaching efforts are often supported by—and in some countries like Zambia, required of—hunting outfitters (Lewis and Alpert 1997). A moratorium on legal hunting in Botswana reportedly resulted in an increase in poaching incidents (Mbaiwa 2018). Perhaps counterintuitively, limited, selective harvest of certain threatened species can aid in their protection. For instance, revenues generated from highly regulated sustainable harvests of a few, typically older male, black rhinos (Diceros bicornis) have benefitted, as opposed to compromised, species recovery and habitat conservation (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al. 2022). A moratorium on hunting rhinos is expected to adversely impact rhino conservation (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al. 2022). Other forms of economic support for wildlife conservation may also originate from hunting. In the US, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 generated almost $1.2 billion (all monetary values are expressed in US dollars) from taxation on firearms and hunting equipment during 2023 alone, of which about $962 million was allocated to wildlife management and conservation (USFWS 2023); likewise, fees associated with hunting licenses generated about $1.1 billion in 2024 (USFWS 2025), which was used by state agencies largely for wildlife conservation.

Local economies can also benefit from hunting expenditures, including through employment, wages, and meat from harvested animals. These benefits can, in turn, generate support for conservation more broadly. For example, in Namibia, revenue generated from hunting is critical to the economic welfare of rural communities, not only providing employment opportunities but also, and more importantly, enhancing community governance and management (Naidoo et al. 2016). Sport hunting operators in Zambia are required to provision at no cost a percentage of meat from harvested wildlife, representing as much as 130 metric tons to local communities annually (White and Belant 2015). This meat is distributed to people living in the most remote parts of the country and during times when people are most likely to experience food shortages (White and Belant 2015). Other ways to incentivize wildlife conservation through hunting include reductions in zoonotic potential and human–wildlife conflicts as well as maintenance of cultures and traditions (Belant et al. 2024). By managing wildlife harvests sustainably, people receive benefits that can promote personal investment in sustainable use. In Namibia, devolution of wildlife management to communal conservancies resulted in sustainable harvest management with positive effects on food security and livelihoods (Goergen et al. 2024). Finally, hunting can facilitate environmental stewardship. Participating in hunting has the potential to foster greater appreciation for the environment, respect for other animals, and a desire to maintain natural areas, thereby indirectly benefiting ecosystem services (Shephard et al. 2024).

Despite the above-mentioned benefits, hunting may also detract from wildlife conservation, such as when harvest magnitudes are unsustainable. In such cases, unregulated hunting or unenforced regulations can result in population decline or loss, irrespective of hunting purpose. For example, in parts of Africa, the livelihoods of some people depend on unsustainable harvests (Ingram et al. 2025), and globally, mammalian species subject to subsistence harvests are associated with greater likelihood of population declines (Hill et al. pers comm).

Maintaining artificially high wildlife populations, such as within certain hunting reserves that maximize abundance in efforts to increase revenue, could adversely impact other species or associated habitat. Some African reserves that allow hunting maintain stocked species at densities exceeding ecological carrying capacity (eg Büscher 2021). Participation in international hunting is associated with high carbon footprints (eg fuel for and emissions from long-haul aircraft), which contribute to climate change (Di Minin et al. 2016). Moreover, engaging in hunting for crass purposes has deleterious impacts on wildlife and its conservation, by promoting a consumptive, dismissive attitude toward nature in general (see Klöckner 2013).

Lastly, distribution of hunting benefits can be imbalanced. Revenues generated from hunting do not always benefit the local people that live with or near the hunted wildlife (Di Minin et al. 2016), or these benefits are not adequately devolved, which could contribute to a negative attitude among local people toward wildlife conservation (Lindsey et al. 2006).

The ways in which hunting can contribute to or detract from wildlife conservation vary in their magnitude and impact. Furthermore, because multiple influences of hunting can operate together in a single context, they must be considered holistically and assessed in terms of an overall harm-to-benefit ratio or specific harms and benefits. For example, a person travelling from the US to Namibia to hunt on a communal conservancy would directly or indirectly provide funds that benefit sustainable wildlife management and local communities but would simultaneously contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions.

Wildlife conservation is only one of many things that society values, and efforts to promote the benefits of hunting to wildlife conservation should consider other ethical and social values. Indeed, animal welfare theorists might raise ethical questions about the legitimacy of some or all forms of hunting, even if it benefits conservation (eg Batavia et al. 2019). In addition, in cases where people's livelihoods depend on unsustainable hunting practices, the ethical importance of these people's short-term needs must be considered alongside the long-term desires for conservation. Equitability in hunting opportunities and the distribution of benefits afforded also should be considered (Abebe et al. 2020).

Likewise, it is important to remain sensitive to different attitudes toward hunting in varying geographical and social contexts. Proponents and opponents of hunting both typically desire protecting wildlife and their habitat, wise management of natural resources, and greater connections with nature (Knezevic 2009). However, views on hunting itself can differ markedly and vary with proximity to the species in question. For instance, many more people who live distant from lions (Panthera leo) are opposed to lion hunting in comparison with people who live proximate to lions that predate livestock or kill people (Macdonald et al. 2017). As compared to residents of southern Africa, who more often consider hunting as an acceptable form of wildlife management and an important source of revenue (Saayman et al. 2018), people from North America and Europe are more likely to be opposed to hunting in Africa (Hare et al. 2024).

To realize its benefits to wildlife conservation, hunting must be sustainable, which requires effective management that includes monitoring populations, establishing and enforcing quotas, minimizing poaching, and managing habitats. Similarly, greater societal understanding of a shared hunting ethic (eg Peterson 2004) is needed. Finally, efforts to ensure equitable opportunities to engage in hunting and share in its corresponding benefits remain important. These concepts collectively will help ensure that sustainable hunting benefits wildlife conservation and, in turn, the human societies that rely on these resources.