Trophy Hunting in Botswana. Is it any good for Communities and Conservation?
Trophy hunting in Botswana has made headlines once again; predominantly the result of a paper published by Elephants Without Borders, but also because the government of Botswana recently released the 2026 hunting quota (which includes lions for the first time since the hunting ban was rescinded in 2019).
However you may feel about trophy hunting, it is very much a reality. But does trophy hunting do any good for communities and conservation as so many claim?
Arguments over whether the professional hunting industry has net positive benefits for communities and conservation have been raging since I can remember. And anti-hunters and pro-hunters have used these arguments to rage against each other since forever. And they rage against each other hard because the topic challenges deeply held morals and ethical beliefs on one side of the argument, and challenges livelihoods, identity, and perceptions over customs and tradition on the other.
I’ve spent my entire life surrounded by pro-hunters and anti-hunters, and after years of listening to the heart felt arguments and mulling over the pros and cons, I’ve formed my own opinion which is based on direct experience, human and wildlife interactions, and considerable research. Here’s where I land.
My Background with Hunting
As a young child I used to hunt pigeons, guinea fowl, and red billed spurfowl with a pellet gun given to me by my parents on my 8th birthday. My friends and I would cook these birds on illicit bush fires made with stolen matches far away from where my parents would see the smoke.
When I was 10, I watched a friend’s father shoot and kill a female Kudu. I remember her large glassy eyes, a musky smell, and when ordered to skin the animal, I was surprised at how easily my sharpened knife cut the pelt from the fat.
Friends would often invite me on hunting trips with their parents (mine were always anti-hunting unless it was putting food in bellies), and I’d participate — mostly with tracking, spotting, and skinning. But I never pulled the trigger on anything bigger than a bird. The act of killing for sport was always foreign to me. It made me feel uncomfortable on a level I never really understood. However, whatever feelings I had, I fully acknowledge that I was there and that I participated in numerous hunts and kills.
My two younger stepbrothers love hunting. I’ve got several extended family members who are professional hunters, some of whom own their own operations.
I bring this all up merely to paint a picture of my background with hunting, and how it has been (and remains) a formative part of my identity. The question over whether hunting is good for communities and conservation is important to me, and one I take very personally and seriously. I work within both conservation and tourism, and this topic matters — not only to the health of biodiversity and living systems, but to the wellbeing of communities I work with, and also does affect my own livelihood in the sense that international perceptions around trophy hunting can influence the eco-friendly tourism we promote at The African Wild.
At this stage, I should point out that I am anti-trophy hunting (although I support traditional hunting by communities) and I expect I may upset a fair few people with this article, but I have an opinion, and I have every right to share it.
The Ethical Question First
Before we even get into breaking down the realities of whether trophy hunting has any benefit for communities and conservation in Botswana, I believe we need to address the ethical question first:
Can we justify a morally questionable act — killing a keystone species or endangered animal — on the grounds that there are benefits for communities and conservation?
Even if we could prove there are benefits to trophy hunting (which in Botswana I believe there are not), could we still justify allowing a rich foreigner to hunt our most iconic species for sport? If we use this logic, we could justify almost anything on the grounds that it funds some social or envirnmental good. We could use the same logic to legalise paedophilia for Catholic priests on the grounds that the Vatican builds schools and funds education for underprivileged youths. Allowing a morally unethical act, does not justify any of the benefits derived from that act, regardless of what those benefits are. It just doesn’t.
Furthermore, insiders in the safari industry have shared whisperings with me indicating that the foreign hunters coming into Botswana aren’t one-off adventurers, but rather a small group of seasoned hunting oligarchs and oil-rich billionaires competing amongst each other for the most trophies. I’ve heard of a Texan billionaire who is rumoured to have hunted over 100 elephants in Botswana alone and is now pushing for 200. I’ve also been informed – completely off the record – that the complete leopard hunting quota for 2024 was shared between just four hunters who were flown in by helicopter to hunt over 20 cornered leopards each over a week-long period.
While we cannot prove any of this, the ethical aspect here alone is enough to test even the most hardened of hearts. And if this is really happening, we need to know more.
My feeling is that before we even ask questions around nett benefits of pro-hunting, we really should be asking whether we can accept trophy hunting from a moral standpoint.
How Trophy Hunting Actually Works in Botswana
I cannot claim to know how hunting works in other countries, but I have a fairly good understanding of how the professional hunting industry operates in Botswana. Here’s the basic system: The Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) conducts an assessment of wildlife numbers and determines hunting quotas for specific areas. How they do this assessment? Nobody outside the DWNP knows, and some transparency here would be very welcome. These quotas are then broken down into concessions, which are supposedly managed by community trusts and community-based organisations (CBOs). But here’s the thing — in the majority of concessions, there are no trusts or CBOs, and the allocations are handled directly by the DWNP.
Professional hunting companies then bid for the quotas. These bids are private and not open to the public. There is no verifiable way to assess which hunting operators have secured quota in which area, nor how much is paid to trusts, CBOs, or to the DWNP. My estimate is that the DWNP manages approximately 72% of the allocation directly (based on relatively out-of-date published data of operational community trusts and CBOs in Botswana), but without official public records, there’s no way to know for certain and my estimate could be way off – but I don’t think it is.
There are six main professional hunting operators in Botswana that take the proverbial lion’s share of this quota. The professional hunting companies in Botswana then pay either the community trusts or the government for the numbers of animals they have bid upon and are subsequently awarded hunting permits by the DWNP to hunt targeted species on their approved quota lists in specific concessions. These lists include elephant and leopard predominantly, but also include zebra, lechwe, kudu and more. The 2025 hunting quota released by the DWNP has an allocation for 381 elephants, and 93 leopards. The 2026 quota includes an allocation for 430 elephants, 93 leopards, and 10 lions.
On a side note, I’m still to see a study of any nature that is able to justify the sustainable elimination of 93 leopards – a species listed as an appendix 1 endangered species by CITES. Furthermore, the addition of lion into the 2026 quota appears to have been done without any unbiased studies by government nor do I know of any instance where they have sought guidance from predator conservation groups who actively monitor lion and leopard numbers in the country.
There are no public records for the amounts paid by hunting operators in Botswana to either government or the trusts and CBOs. However, insiders reveal that elephant licenses are secured for anywhere from P10,000 to P100,000 — approximately $700 to $7,000 per elephant license, depending on location and who they’re negotiating with.
Once professional hunters secure their allocations, they sell to private hunters either through company websites or at expos and conventions organised by groups such as Safari Club International and the Dallas Safari Club.
The license they sell to rich foreign hunters go for anywhere from $30,000 to $120,000 per elephant – and less for other species. But this is for the trophy hunt alone and there are many extra costs involved. To better understand this, let’s break it down through a not entirely too far-fetched story.
The Not-So-Far-Fetched Tale of Hunty McHunt
A born-into-wealth Texan oil tycoon — let’s call him Hunty McHunt — wants to kill an elephant and mount its stuffed skull and tusks on his mantelpiece. Perhaps this need stems from unresolved daddy issues and a deep dark desperate desire to be the biggest McHunt in the family. There’s a lot of psychology to unpack here, enough to make even the most seasoned psychotherapist question their profession. For now, let’s just accept that killing an elephant is important for Hunty, and he’s determined to go ahead with it.
He does some research and reviews a menu on a random hunting website he finds on google. The cost for an elephant license is going for $78,000, with an additional $1,150 for every pound of ivory over 70 lbs. But Hunty McHunt wants to shoot a bull elephant with tusks over 100 lbs. Such elephants are called tuskers and are widely considered the top prize by elephant hunters. Anything less than a tusker would sully Hunty’s mantlepiece and unnecessarily challenge his already emasculated ego.
A bull with 100 lb tusks adds an extra $34,500 onto the bill. He’s now in for $112,500 USD — and this is only for the license and trophy. It’s time for him to consider the additional costs including accommodation, helicopter transfers, firearm permits, ammunition, and bringing his 24-year-old Belarusian fiancé with him. Nothing like watching a soon-to-be trophy wife ogle over him as he slays the largest beast in all the wilds – ex-wife be damned.
- Seven days all-inclusive accommodation for him and the fiancée: $14,000 ($2,000/day)
- Helicopter flights from Maun: $2,400 (round trip)
- Firearm permit: $500
- Extra ammunition: $2,000
- Fiancée observation fee: $3,150
- Business class tickets from Houston to Maun: $20,000
Total: $276,550
And this does not include the price of exporting the trophy back to Houston – the costs here we have absolutely no idea about, nor whether the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife in the US even currently permits trophy imports from Botswana which appears to be judged on a case by case basis. That doesn’t worry Hunty McHunt. He contacts the company, set’s a date, pays the fee – and is off to satiate his lust to kill.
This is of course all wild conjecture relating to additional costs that are opaque to say the least, but what we can rightly glean is that a hunting operator can pocket $112,500 from the sale of the elephant hunt alone. Even if the license cost them $7,000, they’re still making a killing of a profit at $105,500 for one elephant.
On the other hand, income generated for communities and government from hunting is very unclear. The Minister of Environment and Wildlife, Wynter Mmolotsi, claimed that Botswana earned $4 million USD from hunting in 2024. We have no idea whether this includes income from community trusts, or whether it includes direct sales by the DWNP. And this is for the complete quota — elephants, leopards, kudu, everything.
The same year (2024), Botswana issued 400 elephant licenses. With even a drastically conservative estimate of $50,000 profit per elephant, the operators would have netted over $20 million USD in 2024. The same hunting operator then probably makes as much again from accommodation and extra expenses. Of course they have their own overheads, but the margins look very much in their favour.
But this is all alright, right? I mean, hunting elephants is good for communities and conservation, correct? Hunty McHunt kills a 100lbs tusker and besides now being able to claim he’s biggest McHunt in Texas, his money is going to do some good, right?
Well, let’s break down the arguments.
Breaking Down the Pro-Hunting Arguments
Let’s assess the benefits of the pro-hunting arguments, pick apart the reality, and discern what is actually happening.
Argument 1: Trophy Hunting Provides Income for Communities and Conservation
The claim: When wealthy foreigners hunt elephants or leopards, the money they spend funds conservation efforts and provides financial support for communities and sustainable development across wild areas where eco-tourism isn’t viable. Trophy hunting creates crucial financial incentives for wildlife retention over large areas, especially where ecotourism can’t work. This argument is often used in Botswana. They also argue that low offtake is self-regulating.
The reality in Botswana: Firstly, this argument is greatly flawed due to corruption. The community trusts and CBOs that claim to operate in hunting areas generally have little to any affiliation or attachment to the communities themselves, and they’re under no legal obligation that I can find to provide funds to communities within the concessions they represent for hunting quota allocations. What generally happens is that corrupt officials and local businessmen form CBOs or trusts in areas without any consultation with the communities.
Case study: NG/13 is a concession with a large hunting quota for 2024/25 (and again for 2026), technically belonging to the Tcheku Community Trust. News emerged this year that the quota had been re-allocated by the District Commissioner to a company belonging to Former Minister of Justice Machana Shamukuni and his partner Dawie Groenewald. Groenewald is a wanted international poacher referred to as the Butcher of Musina, with a case pending in South Africa for massacring over 100 white rhinos and illegally exporting their horns. This demonstrates how corruption completely subverts the entire process. Beyond the fact that there is no transparency with the numbers, and no transparency over how much community members get paid, wanted international criminals are being allocated hunting quota.
The whole mess with Dawie Groenewald also blurs the lines between trophy hunting and illegal hunting/poaching. Can anyone trust that an international poacher – who has no qualms about hacking 100 rhino to death in South Africa – is not engaging in illegal hunting as a sideline?
As far as we are aware, Groenewald is still based up in northern Botswana and remains focused on hunting in NG13. Sources in Shakawe say that despite an arrest warrant, police and the BDF are very reluctant to apprehend him, and he continues to operate in NG13 unchecked.
The communities: Corruption aside, I’ve spoken with communities throughout Ngamiland — in Qangwa, Nxaunxau, Chukumuchu, Tsodilo, Habu, Etsha, Nokaneng, Sepopa, Seronga, Gunatsoga, and many more. Communities all along the Okavango, and deep within hunting concessions like NG4 and NG5.
I have yet to meet a single community that can claim to have received any income whatsoever from trophy hunting since the hunting ban was reversed in May 2019. Not a single one.
There is also no viable data from the DWNP regarding how funds generated through trophy hunting are being used to manage conservation. I am literally begging for the government to show transparency here, but there have been no programmes specifically established with funding from trophy hunting to study, maintain, and protect the endangered species that generate profits. None.
Reducing the gene-pool: Far from having a positive impact on conservation, specialists are becoming increasingly alarmed by the targeting of large males (tuskers).
The reality is that trophy hunting in Botswana disproportionately removes the largest and oldest male elephants — the very individuals that carry rare gene combinations for large tusks. The same tuskers contribute to paternity, social leadership, and transmission of learned behaviours. The recent article published by Elephants Without Borders (EWB) concluded that under the current quota (+/- 0.3 % per year) the number of bulls over 30 years old will be 24 % lower than in a population without hunting, and the number of the oldest bulls over 50 years old would be 50 % lower. Because tusk-size (and hence trophy value) increases with age, this selective removal of older, large-tusked bulls slowly eliminates the “tusk gene pool” and narrows the genetic and phenotypic diversity of the population.
Older bulls play key social and reproductive roles — they stabilize bull social structure and dominate mating, so their loss undermines both the social fabric and the long-term genetic health of the herd. Beyond the genetic reduction we are witnessing in real time, Bull elephants hang out in small herds, with younger bulls learning from the older males. By removing the older bulls, the young bulls have no guidance and no role models. In a 2020 study titled Importance of old bulls: leaders and followers in collective movements of all-male groups in African savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana), researchers showed that oldest male elephants consistently assume leadership roles during collective movements of all-male groups. The study effectively argues that selective removal of these older bulls (as happens in legal trophy hunting) can have “detrimental effects on the wider elephant society,” primarily because young males lose access to the social knowledge and guidance provided by older leaders.
This in turn leads to increased Human-elephant conflict.
Argument 2: Trophy Hunting Helps Manage Human–Wildlife Conflict
The claim: Trophy hunting helps manage and reduce human-wildlife conflict, particularly as a mechanism to control elephant numbers and reduce deaths resulting from increased interactions between communities and elephants. Furthermore, arguments are used to justify killing predators such as lion and leopard in that this protects farmers and livestock.
The reality in Botswana: Firstly, and I need to be very clear here, Human-wildlife conflict, and especially Human-Elephant conflict, is a very real and very a dire challenge for thousands of community members throughout Botswana. This issue must be addressed. However, the only real strategy being employed by the government is allowing trophy hunting, and this just completely misses the mark.
As mentioned above, killing older bulls augments a climate for increased human-elephant conflict. However, there is more.
In the few cases where I’ve encountered communities in favour of trophy hunting, it’s only the result of anger related to human-elephant conflict. However, I’ve met far more communities who are strongly anti-hunting for this specific reason.
In NG3, communities claim that trophy hunters regularly target only the largest bull males as part of the quota. In 2023, the face of the felled male was hacked off and the carcass left to rot amongst the remaining herd close to a human settlement by the Xaosha water hole. The remaining bulls from the herd mourned the dead bull for a full day, circling the body. Villagers there claim that the remaining bulls then intentionally moved to the human settlement to wreak havoc and destroy farmland and dwellings. The community remains in no doubt that this was an act of revenge. They claim that this is not an isolated case and that they face heightened retaliatory attacks from elephants every time a professional hunting operation shoots an elephant in their area.
The arguments used for lion and leopard hunting as a means to protect livestock likewise lacks any substance without reliable data, of which there is none. I could also argue that rather than protecting livestock, the increasingly unmanaged expansion of livestock farming into wilderness areas is unregulated and unchecked. We have seen a monumental expansion of illegal cattle posts in the northwest of the country, and rather than regulating this expansion, government is arguing for the elimination of predators as a means to protect largely illegal livestock grazing.
I question all the logic that trophy hunting is good for human-elephant conflict. How? By cutting down the elephant population? It’s merely a drop in the pool. Rather than supporting trophy hunting as a means to protect communities from elephants, it is worsening the situation. You cannot violently remove an elephant from a herd and expect that this will decrease conflict. It just does not make any sense. Government could very easily support any number of other projects that include the management of illegal cattle posting, the removal of veterinary fences, supporting planned agricultural expansion outside of established elephant corridors, promoting educational programmes involving the application of ecological deterrents against elephants… the list goes on and on.
Argument 3: Trophy Hunting Provides Meat to Communities
The claim: Trophy hunting provides sought-after protein to communities, with elephant meat cut up and distributed to local community members following a hunt.
The reality: I wonder if any of the professional hunters themselves have ever eaten an elephant. I have, and it’s… no bueno. It’s tough as all hell, takes ages to cook, has a really strong and unappetizing flavour, and it’s just not that good for a meal. People only ever eat elephant when they are very, very hungry. There’s also no way to refrigerate elephant meat in these communities, and most — if not all — of the meat from an elephant hunt will go uneaten before it rots.
What Trophy Hunting Actually Does
I’m struggling here. I just cannot find any justification for the claims that trophy hunting does any good for communities or conservation in Botswana.
What it does is:
- Invariably increase human-elephant conflict
- Provide a very opaque excuse for corrupt politicians and local businessmen to sideline communities and fill their own pockets
- Allow professional hunting operations to make vast quantities of money
- Blurs the lines and allows illegal hunting and poaching to run rife
What We Need
We could argue over the pros and cons of trophy hunting forever. Pro-hunting groups use numerous arguments and jump between these fragile claims to push forward their own agendas. Numerous academic papers are written by individuals with vested interests, and it’s clear a number of articles are sponsored by groups like Safari Club International.
What we need is transparency. If there are benefits to communities and conservation, please publish the data:
- What studies have been done to justify the quotas and verify sustainable species numbers
- How many animals are being killed and where?
- How much was paid to specific communities?
- Who is doing the hunting? We don’t need names, but if certain individuals are hunting immense numbers of elephants or leopards, we want to know about it.
We also need to acknowledge, that traditional hunting is largely considered illegal, and many indigenous communities – that once relied on hunting (mostly small buck) for sustenance – are unable to do so and are sought after as illegal poachers if they do. This is another discussion, for another time, but important to keep in mind.
I don’t expect to change perspectives — they’re too deeply entrenched. But I’ve put down my thoughts on this matter as they are. Both sides of this argument are encased in their bubbles. But with more transparency, I’d be open to reevaluating my own opinion (and would hope that others are open as well). If you want to leave a comment, please do so with an open heart and mind.
