Eric T. Freyfogle, a Swanlund Chair at the University of Illinois College of Law, is an expert on wildlife law and conservation issues. He spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the controversy surrounding Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer’s killing of Cecil the Lion, a star attraction at the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe.
What is the legal situation facing Walter Palmer? Does it make any difference that he has apologized and insisted that the killing was in error?
The facts of Palmer’s case are not clear, so any commentary is tentative. Still, it seems evident he faces legal problems in both Zimbabwe and in the U.S. Some version of the circulating facts link him to bribery or other improper efforts to influence government agents, either to get needed hunting permits or licenses or to induce agents to assist his hunt in improper ways. Without knowing the facts, it’s hard to comment on such speculation.
As for his trophy hunting, he could face charges related to several aspects of it. He needed a special license for lion hunting. One suspects he obtained it, perhaps lawfully. His hunting did involve the use of bait to attract the lion. The use of such bait is often illegal in hunting, but not always. (Bait is widely used in big-game fishing.) Luring the lion away from a protected reserve might also be unlawful under Zimbabwe law, but it also might be perfectly legal, a way to harvest selected animals in the reserves without having hunters enter.
Palmer’s apology might affect decisions on prosecution but would otherwise have no legal effect. His claim that he was unaware of any illegality, on the other hand, could become important if he is prosecuted under a criminal law that requires some showing that he knew or should have known about the illegality. Ignorance of the law is occasionally a valid excuse.
Where is Palmer more likely to face prosecution – in Zimbabwe or in the U.S.?
He could face prosecution in either country. Zimbabwe would be the first choice because the evidence and witnesses are there and courts know local law. Zimbabwe, however, would need to get custody of Palmer, which could require an extradition request to the U.S., which does have a modern extradition treaty with Zimbabwe dating from 2000. Extradition can be sought for any crime under Zimbabwe law if the crime carries a maximum penalty of more than one year in prison and if the underlying conduct would also violate U.S. law and would warrant a similar penalty under U.S. law.
It is far from clear that Zimbabwe would seek extradition given the impacts that it might have on their very profitable trophy game-hunting industry. It might choose instead to impose all blame on local people so as not to scare away other big-game hunters. If it did submit an extradition request through diplomatic channels, the U.S. would need to look at the facts alleged to decide whether they presented violations of U.S. laws that carried a possible sentence of more than one-year imprisonment. Some game law violations do, but many do not.
As for prosecution in the U.S., the main possibility is under the federal Lacey Act, which makes it a federal crime to violate a foreign game law in a transaction that includes some element of international commerce. The commerce requirement seems clearly met in this case: It is enough that Palmer crossed national borders and hired guides and outfitters for the hunt. A U.S. prosecution, while thus possible, would be more challenging since it would mean bringing witnesses to the U.S. and also arranging expert testimony in court on the law of Zimbabwe.
Finally, a U.S. prosecutor would need to show that Palmer knew or should have known about the illegality of his hunt. If he did not know but should have known, the maximum penalty is one year in prison. If he had actual knowledge of the illegality, the penalty rises to five years in prison.
Does this point to a bigger, more problematic issue of trophy hunting? Namely, that big sums of money are being spent in poor countries to hunt exotic big-game animals. Isn’t a situation like that just ripe for trouble?
It is ripe for trouble, in part because the amounts of money involved are huge for local citizens who can thereby be tempted to please trophy hunters in ways not consistent with local and international law.
On the other hand, the number of big-game trophy licenses legally available is relatively small and the process of issuing them is of great interest to government officials. The issuance process is unlikely to be secretive. Trophy hunters typically want to bring their trophies home, which means submitting to clearance processes with home-country customs officials. East African lions are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The export of trophies requires a separate export permit from Zimbabwe, and U.S. custom’s officials keep careful records of them.
What is more secret are the actual steps taken on the ground, often at night, to track, lure and kill the animals.
When it’s done legally, is there much conservation credibility to big-game hunting?
Yes, there is. Of course, it would be better if trophy seekers were willing to pay similar large amounts simply to get up-close photographs of the big-game animals. But they typically want to kill the animals and keep the remains, and money talks.
Conservation benefits arise because the large hunting fees provide sizeable incentives for countries that feature big-game animals to protect the animals from poaching and to defend or enhance their habitats. Hunting license fees pay the salaries of many game wardens, refuge managers and wildlife researchers, as well as generating revenue for local economies. They provide incentives to reduce encroachments into wildlife refuges by people seeking land or food, and provide a counterbalance when lions and other big animals kill local people.
In the view of many, such big game hunting, if prohibited, would simply shift to the black market. Different criminal groups might then compete for the business, leading to violence. In any event, black-market income would not end up protecting the animals and their habitats.