Edinburgh Napier University

  Trophy hunting, canned hunting, and tiger farming have attracted much negativity from the general public because of their trivialization of wild animals’ lives and welfare. Yet they persist because of their perceived conservation value. This article seeks to demonstrate that whether these activities have conservation value or not is irrelevant. As science demonstrates Darwin’s theory that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and non-human animals is one of degree, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the objectification of animal life enshrined into international wildlife law and conservation policies. This trivialization of animal life is the result of the utilitarian narrative that grounds conservation policies reflected in international wildlife law where the end justifies all means, no matter how ethically controversial they may be. As the lives of wild animals are objectified and trivialized as these activities exemplify, conservation for sustainable use remains the sole yardstick to legalize or ban wildlife exploitation-based industries at the international and national level. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrating high cognitive abilities of non-human animals in several orders of the Animal Kingdom, however, supports many animal ethics theories that wild animals and animals’ lives in general have intrinsic worth. As such, wild animals are at least moral patients, entitling them to a minimum of specifically tailored rights that cannot be automatically overridden by mere trivial anthropocentric interests, but rather weighted against them. A more zoocentric rights-based approach to international wildlife law could yield better conservation results than the current utilitarian species-focused approach.