Kedar Bhasme
Abstract
This article explores whether carefully regulated hunting could complement wildlife conservation in India. It draws on international examples—Namibia’s community
conservancies, South Africa’s private reserves, and the U.S. Pittman–Robertson funding
model—to show how limited, science-based hunts can raise conservation funds and
benefit rural communities. It also considers India’s strict wildlife laws and cultural norms.
Finally, it proposes a cautious pilot approach and calls for evidence-driven discussion and
research.
Namibia’s Community Conservancies
Namibia’s communal conservancies manage wildlife collectively, including through annual trophy hunts under scientific quotas. Remarkably, these hunts off-take only about 1% of the wildlife population each year, yet they generate substantial revenue. For example, in 2018, communal hunts earned N$34.5 million (∼US$2.3 million), funding local game guards and community programs. (Almost all trophy revenue flows back to the conservancies, which use it for patrols and even to compensate farmers for livestock or crop losses.) This creates a clear incentive: wildlife on communal land is an asset, not a liability.
South Africa’s Private Wildlife Reserves
South Africa has a vast private conservation sector. Roughly 10,000 game ranches span
about 21 million hectares. These ranches helped grow the wild-game population from
roughly 575,000 animals in the 1960s to nearly 24 million today. In 2014, the wildlife industry (including hunting) contributed around R10 billion (US$0.7 billion) to the economy.
In this model, landowners directly benefit from living wildlife, so they invest in its protection and management. Many conservationists credit this “sustainable use” model with preserving species that might otherwise have declined. (By contrast, countries that banned all hunting have often seen steeper wildlife losses.)
U.S. Pittman–Robertson Conservation Model
In the United States, a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment
(the Pittman–Robertson Act of 1937) channels hunters’ dollars into wildlife restoration. By 2010, this program had generated over US$2 billion for state wildlife agencies, funding
habitat purchase, research and game management. The results have been dramatic: many
once-depleted game species have rebounded. For example, white-tailed deer and wild
turkey populations recovered from near-extirpation to common-game status in many
regions. This “user pays” model shows how hunting fees can fund broad ecosystem
recovery.
Potential Benefits for India
If adapted carefully, regulated hunting could yield several benefits in India.
- First, it could raise revenue for conservation and rural development. In Namibia and South Africa, hunting permits and trophy fees are paid to community trusts or wildlife agencies, directly funding anti-poaching patrols, habitat management, and local projects. A similar system in India could finance forest patrols, farmer compensation programs, or village infrastructure where conflicts occur.
- Second, hunting may help control the problem of India’s Wildlife. The institute has identified species like rhesus macaques, wild boar, and nilgai as top conflict animals. A strictly regulated hunt of such overabundant herbivores (with fees used to help affected communities) could reduce crop damage or vehicle collisions more transparently than ad hoc culls.
- Third, involving local communities builds stewardship. If villagers receive meat or income from wildlife, they perceive animals as assets. For example, Namibian conservancy members share in trophy meat and fees. When people benefit directly, they have stronger reasons to protect wildlife and oppose poaching.
Challenges in the Indian Context
Introducing regulated hunting in India faces formidable challenges. Legally, the Wildlife
(Protection) Act of 1972 forbids hunting of virtually all wild species; only a few common
“Vermin” (rats, crows, etc.) can be culled without restriction. Allowing any sport or trophy
hunting would require major legal reforms or special exemptions (for example, creating a
new class of “game reserves” or issuing state-level pilot permits).
Ecologically, India’s wildlife is highly diverse, and many species are rare or endangered. Any hunt would have to explicitly exclude vulnerable species. Namibia’s experience shows that strict, science-based quotas kept wildlife populations stable under hunting, but India currently lacks the widespread monitoring needed for that. Culturally, many Indians revere wildlife: a tiger or elephant is a national symbol, and killing it would provoke outrage. Even in tribal cultures, inherited taboos often limit the killing of animals. In short, hunting runs against deep-rooted social and ethical norms in India.
Any policy change would have to address these concerns, not just modify laws.
A Balanced Pilot Approach
Given these constraints, I recommend a cautious, local pilot. For example, a state government could authorize controlled hunts of specific abundant species in a defined area (such as wild boar or deer in a sparsely populated district).
Wildlife scientists would set a fixed quota based on surveys, and only trained, licensed hunters (or designated local wardens) could shoot under strict oversight. Permit fees should be high and earmarked for local needs (schools, health clinics, additional forest staff, etc.). Independent researchers would closely monitor outcomes: annual wildlife counts would ensure populations remain healthy, and socioeconomic surveys would gauge community impacts. After a trial period, policymakers could assess results: if conflicts fell, local incomes rose, and wildlife stayed stable, the program could be cautiously expanded; if problems emerged, it would be halted. This adaptive approach would let India test the idea with minimal risk.
Conclusion and Policy Implications
Regulated hunting is undoubtedly controversial in India, but global precedents suggest it
merits evidence-based consideration. Namibia, South Africa, and the U.S. show that under
well-enforced systems, hunting fees can fund conservation and give communities a stake
in wildlife.
In India’s context of tight budgets and rising human–animal conflicts, a carefully defined experiment could test whether similar gains are possible here. We therefore propose that policymakers authorize limited trial hunts of non-endangered species in select areas, under stringent scientific and community controls. These trials should be transparently evaluated. We invite forest managers, scientists, and civil society to engage in open debate and research on this idea. Only through rigorous study and dialogue can India determine whether regulated hunting can have a constructive role in its wildlife future.
About the contributor: Kedar Bhasme is a Delivery Lead, LegalEase Solutions LLC. He is a Researcher at International Women’s Initiative (IWI), Indo-Pacific Researcher, Platform for Peace & Humanity. He is a fellow of EPAYF 2.0 – Environment Policy and Action Youth Fellowship, Cohort 2.0.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
People and the Wetland: A Look at How the Community Views and Manages Nangal Wetland
A Comparative Analysis of Financing Climate Action in India and China: Is Climate Finance Working?
Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Khushboo Dandona, a research intern at IMPRI
