Trophy hunting is a controversial topic. On the one hand, the idea that a handful of the wealthy elite pays top dollar to shoot iconic and rare animals for 'sport' draws the ire of a far greater number of sensible (and sensitive) humans. On the other, trophy hunting is touted as a 'necessary evil' that brings in much needed funds to support the conservation of targeted species, while at the same time providing economic benefits to impoverished local and indigenous communities living among and alongside trophy hunted wildlife. Whereas the exact figures are impossible to evaluate, global financial contributions number in the several millions of dollars. A single polar bear will cost a trophy hunter in the region of USD30,0001 , an African elephant up to USD50,0002 and a critically endangered black rhinoceros has fetched upwards of USD350,0003 . Proponents of trophy hunting often argue that without such funds these targeted animals will not be better protected, especially in remote wilderness areas that do not enjoy the financial benefits of mass wildlife-watching tourism. For the opportunity to blast the life out of an iconic animal, trophy hunting ostensibly provides much-needed capital for anti-poaching measures, fences and wilderness protection from anthropogenic habitat encroachment. Furthermore, proponents of trophy hunting recognise the need to include local and indigenous human communities in the activity, both in the form of direct employment and wider community economic benefits. Most significantly, in response to the increasing clamour of public outcries, trophy hunting defenders caution against such emotional responses, stating that hard facts and reason should be the only factors to consider when judging the activity. But again, the trophy hunting economic model fails. It remains a top-down approach, or rather a top-trickle-down approach. On community-managed land in Namibia and Botswana, for example, the USD50,000 to shoot an elephant gets paid directly into the bank account of a hunting safari company, called an outfitter. The outfitter claims the lion’s share of the money, typically about eighty percent of the funds, which goes to pay travel expenses, luxury lodge accommodation and food as well as a sizeable profit for the outfitter. The remaining twenty percent is given to the local community. That is paid into a community trust fund and is handled by a manager and a staff compliment of about a dozen employees. Most of those funds are used for running expenses of the community trust – vehicles and vehicle expenses, staff salaries, office and office expenses etc. This means that on average roughly USD1,000 is left remaining for the few thousand or so members of the community. If that money is handed out directly to each community member, it amounts to around a few dollars or cents per person per year (depending on the size of the community), hardly a figure that will improve the livelihoods of people. The fact that money is hardly ever paid directly to community members makes it worse. Corruption and allocation of funds to other sources ensures that most community members who are supposed to benefit never receive a cent.