Trophy hunting has occupied a prominent position in recent scholarly literature and popular media. In the scientific conservation literature, researchers are generally supportive of or sympathetic to its usage as a source of monetary support for conservation. Although authors at times acknowledge that trophy hunting faces strong opposition from many members of the public, often for unspecified reasons associated with ethics, neither the nature nor the implications of these ethical concerns have been substantively addressed. We identify the central act of wildlife “trophy” taking as a potential source of ethical discomfort and public opposition. We highlight that trophy hunting entails a hunter paying a fee to kill an animal and claim its body or body parts as a trophy of conquest. Situating this practice in a Western cultural narrative of chauvinism, colonialism, and anthropocentrism, we argue trophy hunting is morally inappropriate. We suggest alternative strategies for conservation and community development should be explored and decisively ruled out as viable sources of support before the conservation community endorses trophy hunting. If wildlife conservation is broadly and inescapably dependent on the institution of trophy hunting, conservationists should accept the practice only with a due appreciation of tragedy, and proper remorse.

中文翻译：

---

房间里的大象（头）：对奖杯狩猎的批判性眼光

狩猎奖杯在最近的学术文献和大众媒体中占据着重要的位置。在科学的保护文献中，研究人员通常支持或同情其作为保护资金的来源。尽管作者有时承认战利品狩猎面临许多公众的强烈反对，这通常是出于与道德相关的未明原因，但这些道德问题的性质和影响都没有得到实质性的解决。我们确定野生动植物“奖杯”的核心行为是道德上的不适和公众反对的潜在根源。我们着重指出，奖杯狩猎需要猎人支付一定费用才能杀死动物并声称其身体或身体部位是征服的奖杯。我们将这种做法置于沙文主义，殖民主义和人类中心主义的西方文化叙事中，我们认为奖杯狩猎在道德上是不合适的。我们建议在保护社区认可狩猎奖杯之前，应探索和决定性地采取其他保护和社区发展战略，作为可行的支持来源。如果野生动植物保护在很大程度上且不可避免地依赖于奖杯狩猎制度，那么保护主义者应该只在对悲剧和适当的re悔有应有的重视的情况下接受这种做法。我们建议在保护社区认可狩猎奖杯之前，应探索和决定性地采取其他保护和社区发展战略，作为可行的支持来源。如果野生动植物保护在很大程度上且不可避免地依赖于奖杯狩猎制度，那么保护主义者应该只在对悲剧和适当的re悔有应有的重视的情况下接受这种做法。我们建议在保护社区认可狩猎奖杯之前，应探索和决定性地采取其他保护和社区发展战略，作为可行的支持来源。如果野生动植物保护在很大程度上且不可避免地依赖于奖杯狩猎制度，那么保护主义者应该只在对悲剧和适当的re悔有应有的重视的情况下接受这种做法。