This week the Australian Alliance for Animals put out a media release stating that the Australia Labor Party (ALP), Greens, Animal Justice Party, several minor parties and independents have committed to banning imports of certain hunting trophies.
As is so often the case with organisations like this, they’re big on talk, shy on evidence and limited with the facts.
If you dig deep enough into their website, you can find the actual responses from the ALP along with a summary of responses received from other parties and independent candidates – Summary of Responses.
Will the specific act of extending a ban on imported hunting trophies actually improve animal welfare outcomes? And what are the other consequences of this policy position?
In the 2023-24 session of the Parliament in the United Kingdom (UK), a similar Bill called the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill originated in the House of Commons and failed to make it to the second reading speech.
In September 2024, the University of Oxford provided analysis that this Bill would cause more harm than good if it was to become law (New analysis indicates UK hunting trophies law would cause more harm than good | University of Oxford).
One of the key findings by the researchers, led by the University’s Department of Biology and the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade, was “trophy hunting was found to provide, or have the potential to provide, significant environmental and social benefits. These included protecting wildlands from conversion to agriculture; providing resources to prevent poaching; income and employment for Indigenous peoples and local communities; provision of meat for local communities; and enhanced population growth for threatened species. Importantly, these social benefits also extended to regions where opportunities for commercial tourism are limited.”
They also concluded that the impact assessment of the Bill had “failed to adequately consider the benefits of trophy hunting to local communities, particularly its role in supporting livelihoods”, and that the Bill “was disproportionate and may cause more harm than good to the species it was intended to protect”.
Further to this, research conducted by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) found that fewer than half of UK adults would support a trophy hunting ban if it would increase threats to wildlife conservation or negatively impact marginalised rural communities.
So, on one hand we have contemporary independent research by one of the most esteemed universities in the world, that speaks to the actual impact of potential hunting trophy import legislation changes. On the other hand, we have more antiquated non-independent research by an advocacy group who derived 76% of their revenue (in excess of $2.5 million) from donations and bequests and specify that one of their key strategic pillars is “to build financial momentum and reserves”.
It begs the question – is this organisation really invested in improving animal and human welfare outcomes? Or are they more motivated to enhance their finances through sensationalism?
The founding members of the Australian Alliance for Animals are Animals Australia, World Animal Protection, Humane World for Animals (formerly Humane Society International), Four Paws Australia, and Voiceless, with their activism supported by grants from Open Philanthropy, Effective Altruism Funds, Voiceless, and Animals Aotearoa, along with generous donations from individual philanthropists.
Either way, this is more information for you to consider in the upcoming election on 3 May. Make sure you read the summary of responses (link provided earlier in this article) and think about who you want to vote for.
The founding members of the Australian Alliance for Animals are Animals Australia, World Animal Protection, Humane World for Animals (formerly Humane Society International), Four Paws Australia, and Voiceless, with their activism supported by grants from Open Philanthropy, Effective Altruism Funds, Voiceless, and Animals Aotearoa, along with generous donations from individual philanthropists.
SSAA have reached contacted both the ALP and Liberal parties for comment in relation to this issue and we will share their responses if and when we receive them.