An earlier version of this article was published on the Britannica blog Advocacy for Animals.
In early December 2003, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney went hunting. He and nine guests spent the day shooting ring-necked pheasants and mallards at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier, Pennsylvania. According to local news reports, the Cheney party shot a total of 417 pheasants, with Cheney himself killing 70. The number of ducks dispatched was not disclosed. The birds were collected, plucked, and vacuum-packed by club staff.
Although Cheney, an avid hunter, then enjoyed a reputation as an excellent shot, his success on that occasion was not due to his skill as a marksman. The birds killed by his party were not wild. They were raised in pens as hunting fodder and released by club staff when the hunters were ready to shoot. It is rather surprising, then, that of the 500 birds set loose for the Cheney party, more than a few—83, to be exact—managed to escape.
The vice president’s participation in a canned hunt—the killing of an animal for entertainment or trophy in artificial or manipulated circumstances designed to give the animal little or no chance of escape—prompted a flurry of criticism from animal-welfare groups. A few newspapers reported the reaction, causing Cheney some brief embarrassment, but there was no public outcry.
“No kill, no pay”
Although canned hunting has been practiced (not always legally) in South Africa and neighboring countries for many decades, it is relatively new in the United States. Nevertheless, there are now more than 1,000 so-called “hunting preserves” or “game ranches” on private land in more than two dozen U.S. states; more than 500 of them are located in Texas. Such enterprises offer prospective hunters the opportunity to kill—with a rifle, pistol, or bow and arrow—any of hundreds of native or exotic animal species in circumstances that virtually guarantee success. Indeed, several canned-hunting parks advertise a “no kill, no pay” policy, under which the client pays nothing unless he takes home a trophy or a skin or at least a vacuum-packed bird. Hunting licenses are usually not required.
It is thus in the financial interests of canned-hunting parks to make it easy for clients to kill animals. That is accomplished in a variety of ways, depending on the size of the park, the species in which it specializes, the character of the terrain, the extent to which the client is willing to exert himself so that he feels like a real hunter, and the existence of any restrictions imposed by state or local laws.
All canned-hunting parks that specialize in land mammals have reinforced fences to prevent the animals from simply walking away—though a small number do manage to overcome that obstacle. (Birds are usually kept in cages until just before they are shot.) Most parks occupy a few hundred to several thousand acres, but the animals in them do not always roam freely over the total area. It is typical for certain kinds of animals to be restricted within much smaller enclosures by fences or other artificial barriers. In some parks, clients with minimal skill, energy, patience, or time can kill animals in a fenced enclosure of only a few square yards. For the truly hurried or incompetent hunter, some parks will even sedate the animal or tie it to a stake.
Even in parks where it is not possible to shoot animals in a cage at point-blank range, the assistance of guides makes it much easier for clients to locate prey. Guides are intimately familiar with the terrain and the habits of the animals, including the areas in which they rest and feed. Indeed, many parks have constructed feeding stations, salt licks, or watering holes precisely in order to attract animals to locations where they may be easily shot. Feeding times are coordinated with the clients’ arrival at the station so that no one is made to wait too long for his kill. The blinds or towers in which the clients hide are designed to make clean shots easy and the minimal waiting time bearable. After the client poses for a portrait with the dead animal, park staff gut it and make a trophy of the skin or the decapitated head. The entire animal may be stuffed if the client so desires.
Needless to say, canned hunting is an expensive hobby. Most parks charge a fee for each land mammal the client kills. Lodging, food, guides, and taxidermy services are usually extra. In the United States the 777 Ranch, in San Antonio, Texas, charges $2,500 to $15,000 to kill a single white-tailed deer (the price depends on the “score” the animal receives on a scale established by the Boone and Crockett Club to rate big-game trophies). Although zebras can be shot for only $4,000 each, clients pay $20,000 for each alpine ibex and $50,000 for each cape buffalo. In South Africa, where a well-established hunting industry caters to wealthy European and American tourists, the cost of shooting a lion in a canned hunt ranges from about $10,000 to more than $45,000, depending on the sex and size of the animal, among other factors. As in the United States, all services are extra, and tips are expected.
The lodging provided by most parks is comparable in service and convenience to good-quality hotels. Clients are typically driven from lodges to shooting sites and back by guides and other staff.
Captive breeders and animal farms
In the United States the variety of species that it is possible to shoot in canned-hunting parks is impressive, ranging from antelope, bison, bear, and white-tailed deer to elk, giraffe, African lion, moose, ostrich, wildebeest, and zebra. Popular bird species include duck, dove, quail, and pheasant. Non-native species are obtained from domestic and overseas captive breeders, “animal farms,” and animal dealers. Some of the latter act as middlemen for zoos and circuses that are eager to get rid of older animals in order to make room for crowd-pleasing babies. Animal farms in the United States supply species that are shot in large numbers, such as quail or pheasant, or species that are especially sought after for their trophies or skins. Most farms and captive breeders in South Africa specialize in “big-game” animals—overwhelmingly lions but also tigers, cheetahs, and leopards. The animals are sometimes genetically manipulated to produce rare or attractive characteristics. White lions or lions with large black manes, for example, fetch much higher prices than more ordinary-looking animals. (According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, live white lions in South Africa have been sold to canned-hunting parks for as much as $100,000 each.)
Many animals raised by breeders or on farms become accustomed to the presence of human beings, and some, depending on the species, may be practically tame by the time they encounter the rugged outdoorsman and his guide in a canned-hunting park. The fact that those unfortunate animals do not instinctively flee at the sight of approaching humans makes them much easier to shoot than animals that are truly wild.
Objections to canned hunting
The proliferation of canned hunting has encouraged an odd alliance between, on the one hand, animal-welfare and animal-rights organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States and Paws4LifeAfrica, and, on the other, traditional pro-hunting organizations, such as the Boone and Crockett Club and the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA). The latter groups object to canned hunting on the grounds that it ignores the principle of “fair chase,” which states that the circumstances of the hunt and the condition of the animal must be such that it has a fair chance of evading the hunter in its natural habitat by means of its naturally developed instincts and capabilities. Some pro-hunting groups have interpreted the fair-chase principle to mean that properly conducted hunts will result in the escape of the animal most of the time. But however the principle is understood, it is clear that it is not respected by canned-hunting parks. Most do not even pretend to observe it, and some even trumpet the fact that they do not.
Another common objection is that canned hunting usually entails a great deal more suffering for the animal than fair-chase hunts conducted for food or to reduce the size of herds. Because in most cases the canned-hunting client wishes to take home a handsome trophy, he will avoid shooting the animal in the neck or the head and instead aim for the abdomen (often hitting only the flanks). The usual result is that the animal dies slowly and in agony after being shot several times. That is especially true in cases where the rugged outdoorsman uses a bow and arrow. Most of the animals killed in that way die of blood loss rather than organ damage.
The legal front
In the United States there is no federal law regarding canned hunting, and only about 20 states have banned or restricted the practice. In 2005 Congress defeated a proposed Sportsmanship in Hunting Act, which would have prohibited the interstate transport of exotic species for the purpose of hunting for entertainment or trophy. Although any hunting of animal species that are endangered or threatened is generally prohibited by the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) routinely permits canned-hunting operations to kill endangered or threatened species under an exemption for activities that enhance “the propagation of the survival of the species”—allegedly through the generation of revenue that may be directed toward organizations that help to conserve the species in the wild. Notably, in January 2017 the FWS listed two species of lion as endangered or threatened, a move that should make it more difficult for American hunters to import trophies taken from lions they kill in canned hunts in Africa. Meanwhile, in 2015 Australia and France banned the import of lion trophies and lion parts, and several international airlines now refuse to carry them on their flights.
South African regulations proposed in 2006 and due to be implemented in 2007 would have forbidden the hunting of “large predators” that were bred in captivity, except in cases where (1) the animal was released into the wild and had fended for itself for at least 24 months and (2) the animal was killed in an “extensive wildlife environment.” After the country’s lion-breeding industry announced its intention to challenge the regulations in court, their effective date was postponed to 2008, and lions were temporarily removed from the regulations’ list of large predators. In 2010 South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal invalidated the regulations, holding that the 24-month wild period and the removal of lions from the list of large predators did not represent a “rational decision.” Largely as a result of that decision, there are currently no meaningful legal restrictions on canned hunting in South Africa.
During the remainder of his vice presidency, Cheney continued to shoot pen-raised birds at the Rolling Rock Club and other canned-hunting venues. After 2003, however, the details of his outings were more carefully guarded.
Lions: Fact or Fiction?