How the deliberate spread of mis-information can lead to conservation harm

A recent article in the Daily Mail on the topic of the import of ‘hunting trophies’ – a law on which is currently being discussed in parliament – revealed some telling comments from conservation experts. 

Amy Dickman is a professor of wildlife conservation at Oxford University. In her statement to the Daily Mail, she accused The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting of sharing “clear misinformation” with politicians and policy makers.  

Professor Dickman explained that researchers had analysed 118 statements made by MPs during a parliamentary debate on the import of hunting trophies last month, and found that 85 (72 per cent) were either false or misleading.   

“This recent debate showed how easy it is for clear misinformation to be accepted and shared by MPs, and used to directly influence policy-making,” Professor Dickman said. “That is shocking, and highlights a major risk of biased interest groups being able to influence legislation.” 

Another Professor, Adam Hart, professor of science communication at the University of Gloucestershire, described the “scale of misinformation” in Parliament as “staggering and deeply concerning”.

This issue regarding the spread of misinformation is something that the NGO see evidence of time and time again, and we are delighted that Professors Dickman and Hart have highlighted it publicly.   

The NGO firmly believe that the matter of ‘biased interest groups’ spreading misinformation to politicians, policy makers and other people of influence runs much deeper than the topic of trophy hunting. Professor Hart mentions that the proposed law “will likely cause irreversible conservation harm”; but it is not the only topic that falls into this category.  

Time and time again we see groups or individual campaigners sharing ‘facts’ and claims that we know to be either incorrect or not scientifically proven – whether that’s on the topics of gamebird releasing, heather burning, rewilding, peatland restoration, downplaying the effects of predation on many bird species… the list goes on.   

Unless anyone is willing to confront these campaigners on their spreading of misinformation, their statements go unchallenged. Many academics and scientists are either unwilling or unable to put their heads above the parapet as Professor Dickman has done.  

For the most part, who can blame them? We are fully aware of the abuse they are likely to receive either on social media or in person for sharing research and scientific findings which digress from the ‘accepted view’. We believe that this attitude needs to change. We need to allow scientists and academics to openly discuss and research all topics, including those deemed to be ‘controversial’, without fear of reprisals. We must ensure that politicians and policy makers are not misled or shown only one side of a story. Misinformation as described by Professor Dickman should not be able to inform or influence the law-making process.  

In this specific case, the misinformed statements included false claims that there were as few as 10,000 lions left in the wild (whereas Professor Dickman says the best estimate is that there are 24,000 left), and that British trophy hunters were among the world's 'most active killers' of endangered animals. Data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora shows that the UK is ranked No 24 on a list of countries importing trophies from threatened species.  

Professor Hart pointed the finger of blame at The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting and its Director, Eduardo Goncalves. Mr Goncalves clearly has influence among MPs debating the topic; he is the official ‘Public Enquiry Point’ for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Banning Trophy Hunting. 

'Our concerns are based on evidence and experience, but we are whispering in a hurricane of misinformation deliberately manufactured to advance bans that will likely cause irreversible conservation harm,' Professor Hart told the Daily Mail.