Colonial Racism On Full Display In UK Parliament’s Proposed Trophy Import Ban
An article published in Forbes Magazine by contributing journalist Chris Dorsey this week highlights the hypocrisy, condescension, colonial racism and wrong headedness on full display by the animal rights groups and their supporters, many of whom are UK celebrities, behind the UK’s trophy import ban.
“In recently moving to ban the importation of animals taken by hunters—predominantly from its former colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa—some members of the British Parliament have signaled to African leaders that they are too ignorant and undisciplined to manage their wildlife affairs and care for their own people. Such condescension is nothing new in Britain’s storied history, but it does, in part, explain how a kingdom that once spanned a quarter of the planet (“The sun never sets on the British Empire,” as Joyce wrote in Ulysses) would now fit inside the state of Oregon with room to spare. Disregard the will of nations and sooner or later they revolt.
“In passing the Animals Abroad Bill, Parliament will have sided with celebrity bilge pumps like Piers Morgan and Joanna Lumley and will have ignored the pleas of African leaders and more than 100 of the world’s top experts who warned of disastrous consequences should this bill pass in an open letter to the legislative body.
“It must be remembered that the function of Parliament is not only to pass good laws, but to stop bad laws.”
Winston Churchill
The author excerpts the warning by conservationists, conservation scientists and others: “The UK Government’s proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies is poorly conceived,” wrote the group comprised of nearly 50 doctorate-level wildlife professionals (including several from Oxford University), “and is unlikely to deliver any of its claimed conservation benefits. Instead, it threatens to reverse many conservation gains while undermining the livelihoods, rights and autonomy of rural communities across sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.”Without the funds from elephant hunters who paid large sums to hunt small numbers of the animals, however, there was no money for anti-poaching efforts and there was no one left on the land to care about the fate of the great beasts. By 1989, the country’s elephant population had plummeted to fewer than 20,000 from a high of 275,000. The law of unintended consequences prevailed—as it so often does when emotion trumps science and facts—and poachers seized the day, annihilating that nation’s herds and relegating remnant populations to a handful of parks.
“A person doesn’t have to like the act of hunting itself to support the outcomes of what the activity brings to wildlife populations and people across Africa. Animals die in nature every second of every day (often in gruesome ways) but if our focus turns to the fate of an individual animal rather than the greater good of the herd, both the individual animal and the broader population suffer. Therein lies the crux of the issue for many in the ranks of animal rights organizations who are willing to forego the sustainability of a wildlife population to eliminate the act of hunting. Their focus is not to ensure the future of wildlife populations, but rather it is to end hunting…at any cost—even if that price is wildlife decimation.”
Photo caption:
Anti-poaching teams throughout much of Africa are funded by licenses and fees paid by international hunters. When Kenya closed legal hunting of elephants in 1973, there was no longer money to maintain anti-poaching efforts and the nation’s elephants were slaughtered en masse. AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES.