A Necessary Play at Protecting Threatened Species from Trophy Hunting

A Necessary Play at Protecting Threatened Species from Trophy Hunting

By: Audrey Brice

Between 2014 and 2018, hunters hunted and imported trophies from 10,484 animals listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into the United States; most of those imported were listed as threatened.^[1] This results from trophy hunting: “a form of hunting in which the hunter’s explicit goal is to obtain the hunted animal’s carcass or body part as a trophy.”^[2]

The ESA generally prohibits the “take” of endangered species and restricts or regulates “take” of threatened species. The ESA defines “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”^[3] The definition of “take” under the ESA encompasses trophy hunting. The ESA lists a species as endangered or threatened. Endangered species receive automatic, mandatory protections, while threatened species are subject to discretionary protections.^[4] Endangered species are those “in danger of extinction,” while threatened species are those “likely to become [endangered] within the foreseeable future.”^[5] The Secretary of the Interior has broad discretion under § 4(d) to decide whether, and under what conditions, trophy hunting and importation are permitted for threatened species to provide for their conservation.^[6] That discretionary element is dangerous for conservation, and the Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act of 2025 (the ProTECT Act) is necessary to make protection against trophy hunting for species listed as threatened mandatory instead of discretionary.

Despite the ESA’s purpose, the discretionary element given to the Secretary negatively impacts conservation efforts. Because this discretion lacks clear standards, it becomes vulnerable to political shifts rather than grounded in science. Section 4(d) grants the Secretary authority to permit trophy hunting of threatened species when it “provides for conservation,” but gives no criteria or limiting principles to guide that judgement.^[7] As a result, protections on importing trophies have expanded and contracted with changes in the political climate and public opinion.^[8] The protection of threatened species should not be dependent on the current political climate or public opinion; they should be protected because they need protection.

The ProTECT Act would amend the ESA to “prohibit the taking for a trophy of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife in the United States and the importation of endangered and threatened species trophies into the United States, and for other purposes.”^[9] The Bill would bar anyone under U.S. jurisdiction from trophy hunting threatened species or bringing their trophies into the country. It also eliminates the ability of the Secretary to issue permits allowing trophy hunts or trophy imports of any endangered or threatened species.^[10] In eliminating the Secretary’s ability to issue permits, the Bill would also close a loophole for hunters in the United States to hunt ESA-listed species.^[11] Some hunting operations (“shooting preserves” or “game ranches”) allow hunting within a fenced area, and “[w]hile it is generally illegal to harm an ESA-listed species, the operators of these ranches receive species permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to offer such species in captive hunts.”^[12]

Thus, the ProTECT Act’s mandatory language would remove some of the Secretary’s discretion when it comes to protecting threatened species from trophy hunting. With these amendments to the ESA, the protections currently granted to endangered species (regarding prohibiting the take and import of them) would be extended to threatened species.^[13]

The findings presented in the ProTECT Act detail why it would be beneficial. Congress finds that trophy hunting “undermines efforts to conserve wildlife populations.”^[14] Congress notes that trophy hunters will target large dominant males, and removing these individuals can reduce genetic diversity, disrupt social structures, increase infanticide, and trigger other negative impacts.^[15]

While some argue that hunting can be beneficial to wildlife conservation,^[16] the Animal Welfare Institute argues that “there is no credible scientific evidence that trophy hunting benefits conservation.”^[17] In fact, charismatic species—which are often the target of trophy hunters—are worth more to conservation efforts when they are kept alive.^[18]

Ultimately, the ProTECT Act is an attempt to make the ESA’s prohibition of trophy hunting and importation from foreign countries apply to threatened species as well as endangered species. If enacted, the Act could meaningfully contribute to biodiversity protection and conservation efforts by safeguarding threatened species in the United States and discouraging hunting them abroad through import restrictions.

By reducing the loss of key individuals and maintaining genetic diversity, the ProTECT Act would promote population stability for these species and correct the mismatch between the ESA’s stated purpose and the language used in § 4(d).

^[1] Trophy Hunting by the Numbers: The Role of the United States in International Trophy Hunting, The Humane Society, https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2023/05/DIGITAL_2023-United-States-Trophy-Hunting-by-the-Numbers-Report-compressed.pdf (on file with author).

^[2] Trophy Hunting and Conservation, WWF, https://www.wwf.org.uk/trophy-hunting-and-conservation (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) (on file with author).

^[3] Referring to federally listed endangered and threatened species under the ESA; 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).

^[4] Compare 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(a)(1) (prohibiting endangered species from being taken, possessed, imported, and more), with 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(d) (permitting the relevant Secretary to issue any, all, or none of those protections for threatened species).

^[5] 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A)(ii).

^[6] Id. § 1533(d) (“Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.”).

^[7] Id.

^[8] See, e.g., Juliet Eilperin & Anne Gearan, Trump faced public and private pressure to halt elephant hunting trophy imports, The Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2017 (“A combination of public and private pressure prompted President Trump to overturn his administration’s recent move to allow elephants shot for sport in Zimbabwe and Zambia to be imported back to the United States as trophies.”); Center for Biological Diversity, Elephant Trophy Imports Soar in Trump’s Second Term (May 5, 2026) (“[T]he Trump administration permitted the import of more than 300 elephant trophies in 2025.”); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision to the Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephants, 89 Fed. Reg. 22,522 (Apr. 1, 2024).

^[9] Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act of 2025, H.R. 1934, 119th Cong. (2025).

^[10] Id.; The Civics Project, ProTECT Act of 2025, https://www.civicsproject.org/united-states-of-america/bill/119/1/hr-1934 (last visited Oct. 11, 2026).

^[11] ProTECT Act Would Ban Trophy Imports & Domestic Sport Hunting of At-Risk Species, Animal Welfare Institute, https://awionline.org/news/protect-act-would-ban-trophy-imports-domestic-sport-hunting-of-at-risk-species-2/ (on file with author).

^[12] Id.

^[13] Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act of 2025, H.R. 1934, 119th Cong. (2025) (“To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the taking for a trophy of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife in the United States and the importation of endangered and threatened species trophies into the United States, and for other purposes.”).

^[14] Id.

^[15] Id.

^[16] See, e.g., Jerrold L. Belant et al., Commentary, Does Hunting Benefit Wildlife Conservation?, 23 Frontiers Ecology & Env’t 1, 1 (2025) (arguing that sustainable hunting can benefit conservation through “reducing land-use change,” “funding anti-poaching efforts,” reducing “human-wildlife conflicts,” and more).

^[17] Press Release, Animal Welfare Institute, ProTECT Act Would Ban Trophy Imports & Domestic Sport Hunting of At-Risk Species (Oct. 23, 2019), https://awionline.org/news/protect-act-would-ban-trophy-imports-domestic-sport-hunting-of-at-risk-species/ (on file with author).

^[18] Economists at Large, The $200 Million Question: How Much Does Trophy Hunting Really Contribute to African Communities? (Roderick Campbell ed., 2013) (indicating that the conservation value of living lions outweighs the economic value of killing them); ProTECT Act Would Ban Trophy Imports & Domestic Sport Hunting of At-Risk Species, Animal Welfare Institute, https://awionline.org/news/protect-act-would-ban-trophy-imports-domestic-sport-hunting-of-at-risk-species-2/ (on file with author).