Trophy Hunting, The Dark Triad & Toxic Masculinity

A disturbing look into the minds of trophy hunters

In order to tell this story, I immersed myself in the social media pages of numerous trophy hunters and guide outfitters. I had to steel myself for the task knowing I would be seeing pictures and videos of numerous species of animals that had been, or were in the process of, being killed by these trophy hunters. However, no amount of preparation could have readied me for the graphic images I subjected myself to. Perhaps even more disturbing, was the absolute joy on the faces of the hunters posing with the animals they had killed. And adding to that, was the hateful vitriol directed at me from trophy hunters and their supporters when I dared to post comments opposing this so-called ‘sport.’ To be sure, the comments I made were intentionally provocative in order to illicit angry responses, but it was the nature of the responses that were so alarming. Of note though, was that out of the hundreds of negative comments I received, not one was from a woman.

Without question, trophy hunting is an inhumane and cruel form of entertainment for people who enjoy killing animals. The idea of trophy hunting being a sport is absurd. Sport, by definition, involves voluntary participation where opposing sides have an equal opportunity to win. Trophy hunting, and hunting in general, not only favours the hunter, but the animals being hunted are unaware they are even participating in this ‘sport.’ However, this piece is not about the obvious imbalance between hunter and prey; rather, it is an exploration into what character traits are common among those who take up trophy hunting and why they are so well defended against those who oppose this inhumane, yet legal, form of entertainment.

So what is it about posing for a picture with a dead animal or mounting a head on a wall that is so appealing to trophy hunters? Is it about bragging rights and displaying dominance over another creature? Maybe it’s about re-living the adrenaline rush that occurred when taking the animal’s life. Perhaps it’s about a feeling of belonging with like-minded individuals or maybe it’s all of the above. Whatever the reason, the question we should be asking is why.

In psychology, the ‘dark triad’ describes a combination of personality characteristics that include psychopathy (sub-clinical), narcissism (sub-clinical), and Machiavellianism - sub-clinical meaning symptoms or conditions that are present but not severe enough to meet the diagnostic criteria for a specific disorder. Could this combination be what is driving trophy hunters to continually want to kill big-game animals and is this why they are beaming with pride when posing for pictures with the animals they have killed? In a February 3, 2022 article in The Conversation entitled, Psychology of trophy hunting: why some people kill animals for sport, this notion of the dark triad is discussed as it applies to trophy hunting:

“Narcissists have an inflated sense of self and crave positive attention. To maintain this inflated level of self-esteem they must engage in strategies to maintain and develop their self-image, like posing with a lion they’ve just killed. Machiavellians often manipulate social situations for their own ends, just like the carefully managed social media images, while psychopaths are usually callous and lack empathy – they simply do not experience the same level of emotion about the suffering of others, whether human or animal. So animals can be used as props to maintain their self-image of superiority without guilt or conscience.”

If trophy hunters possess the traits mentioned above, or even just some of them, not only could that explain their lack of remorse, but also their heightened sense of self and their tendency to promote themselves as heroes in their trophy-hunting stories. One of the themes that showed up repeatedly in their comments was how trophy hunters consider themselves to be conservationists and philanthropists. “How do you think people are fed,” mentioned one trophy hunting supporter. “Travelling thousands of miles to help with conservation shouldn’t be jeered. If you had your crops or homes destroyed by elephants, you’d thank Tom.” He was referring to Tom Miranda, a very prolific trophy hunter who travels the world killing big-game animals while claiming to be a conservationist and humanitarian. In this particular instance, Miranda was posing with an elephant he had just killed. The caption accompanying this picture read, “Here's one of my big bulls feet! The elephants of Africa are in a desperate need of management... & hunting is the #1 wildlife management tool.” The caption suggests that he feels the need to justify killing this elephant by declaring it’s essential to manage these animals rather than actually admit he takes pleasure in the act of killing it.

Cartoon Borrowed from Rewriting Earth’s Post

There were several other themes that emerged in response to my comments arguing against trophy hunting, and all included character defamation. These personal attacks questioned my intellect, my sexual orientation, my masculinity, my character, my knowledge and education, etc. and most came in the form of toxic masculinity. “Get your panties out of a bunch, mate,” was one such reply. “GFY,“ was another - an acronym not in need of explanation. Still another commented, “What an incredibly feminine rant.” And my favourite, “Shut up fag.” I responded to this person by calling him out on his homophobia, to which he replied that he is not homophobic, seemingly unaware of the disconnect.

The most prevalent go-to argument in response to my comments was to call into question my knowledge on the subject of trophy hunting and conservation. “How pathetic that you want to judge people you have no clue about,” commented Ryan. “You obviously haven’t taken any time whatsoever to educate yourself on the matter. Just a response based on nothing but your emotion.” Matt wrote, “It is clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, Junior! Leave the conversation to the adults in the room who clearly do!!” Even Miranda himself chimed in and said, “Get educated or get off my page.”

What I found so interesting about the comments I received, is how they all were so dug in and unwilling to entertain any other viewpoints. I was also struck by how most felt it preferable to engage in personal attacks rather than discuss the topic. The few that did try to argue their side were also unable to do so without adding in personal insults. One question that I posed that was left unanswered was if there were non-lethal ways to manage wildlife and to lift people out of poverty, would these trophy hunters endorse these methods and still contribute monetarily to them? That is to say if there were no heads to be mounted on the walls would they participate? Rather than providing an answer, most just continued to insult my character. Here’s how one trophy hunting supporter named Rocky responded:

“Just remember. Humans became the dominant species on earth, like it or not, because we are killers. We are the top predator whether it was ordained by God or evolution, it’s in our DNA. Because we eat meat, the extra protein made our brains larger, which is why we dominate. So all you tree hugging, kale eating, vegan ball babies are just trying to reverse the human experience.”

Upon reading his comment, I was not at all convinced Rocky derived any intellectual benefit from his higher protein diet. Suffice it to say, I think the answer to the question I posed would be a resounding ‘no.’

So why the relentless and ongoing campaign by trophy hunting groups to sanitize their bloodlust and instead, portray themselves as philanthropic conservationists? They are determined to be seen as the good guys in the public sphere while demonizing those who oppose them. Regardless of the species, trophy hunters have found a way to justify killing them. In Africa and North America, the most common refrain is that trophy hunting raises money for conservation and feeds impoverished people. Close behind, is the argument for wildlife management which is a nicer way of describing population control. Trophy hunters have anointed themselves as the wildlife stewards most qualified to ‘manage’ wildlife and are all too eager to get out there and kill. In North America, wolves, cougars, bears (all species), coyotes, foxes, wolverines, beaver, deer, elk, caribou, and numerous other species all require managing according to the trophy hunting lobby. They have gamed the system that allows them to kill all matter of wildlife. If ungulate populations decline, they blame the predators, which provides justification to kill more predators. However, if the ungulates become over populated and see increases in diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD), they do not endorse increasing predator populations to help stem the spread of disease; rather, they campaign for increased hunting quotas of those ungulates. A study published in Conservation Letters - A journal for the society of conservation biology entitled, The elephant (head) in the room: A critical look at trophy hunting, Batavia et. al explains why trophy hunting should never be associated with conservation. “To transform them into trophies of human conquest is a violation of duty and common decency; and to accept, affirm, and even institutionalize trophy hunting, as the international conservation community seems to have done, is to aid and abet an immoral practice.”

So why the need for spin? Why is it so important to them to be seen as doing something positive rather than just owning that they take pleasure in trophy hunting? I asked this question on a number of the hunting social media pages I visited. Specifically, I asked, “Can any of you be honest and just admit that you enjoy killing animals?” While most did not answer and chose instead to hurl more insults at me, there were a couple who did admit that they enjoy killing wildlife. “I take pleasure in killing animals,” wrote Steven. “Do you feel better now?” Another commented, “I fucken love killing shit.” As disturbing as it was to hear, at least they were able to be honest about their intentions.

The narcissism component of the dark triad might well explain their need to be seen in a positive light, while portraying their detractors as weak, uneducated, and ignorant. A May 15, 2023 article written by Professor Geoffrey Beattie FBPsS, FRSM, FRSA and published in AWSELFA entitled, The Psychology of Trophy Hunters, explains why trophy hunters feel the need to be seen in a favourable light.

“The psychological process of how we are able to construct others (or indeed ourselves) using language such as caring about animals and yet, and at the same time, capable of killing them for sport (and indeed proud of it) is also a core consideration for any attempt at a psychological explanation. For example, in their accounts of their own actions, terrorists will often construct themselves as kind-hearted and caring individuals whilst at the same time describing those callous barbaric acts that they have been engaged in (Beattie 2004). Their own self-construction of their positive qualities is often paramount when they talk about what they did in pursuit of this or that political or ideological goal, as is their (explicit or implicit) blaming of the victims (Beattie 1992; 2004). We often find exactly the same thing with trophy hunters.”

And blaming their victims is how trophy hunters justify the killing of their quarry. As mentioned earlier, one rationale is wildlife ‘management,’ which is just a sanitized way of describing culling by killing. It is as if they are trying to convince themselves as much as their audience that they are acting in the name of conservation. Professor Beattie goes on to write, “The interesting and pertinent question is to what extent trophy hunting and the display of dead lions, tigers, rhinos etc. at the feet of the hunter can be construed as part of a narcissistic strategy to elevate social status and maintain an inflated concept of self-esteem.” The answer to that is to quite a large extent.

Closer to home, I viewed many photos of hunters proudly posing with dead wolves, cougars, bears, coyotes, elk, sheep, moose, and deer. More often than not, the animals were displayed in such a way that made the hunter look superior to their prey. It was as if it was a reflection of their masculinity to show dominance over another creature, that would otherwise tear them apart. In the case of one trophy hunter holding up the large wolf he had just shot, the caption accompanying the photo in Yukon Big Game Outfitters Ltd.'s post unsurprisingly read, “They don’t get this big eating rabbits? Wonder what chance a caribou has when a pack of these lock in.” Again, the hunter feels the need to justify his killing by claiming he is saving caribou, but when you see him smiling broadly while hugging the dead wolf from behind, it reveals the true nature of the hunter’s motivation. Another man, in a statement that can only be described as ironic, commented, “Wolves kill for sport, kill everything including human beings. They also eat prey alive.” Not only was his comment misleading and inaccurate, it revealed a stunning lack of self awareness. Still another, in a rare moment of truth, wrote, “Absolutely outstanding hunt, what a mount.”

In a similar post where the hunter is posing in much the same way, only this time with a cougar he had just killed, one supporter replied:

“You do realize people eat mountain lion right? It's actually very, very good. It’s not just about going out and killing something for the hell of it, WE EAT what we harvest. And remember this, if it weren't for HUNTERS and ANGLERS, there really wouldn't be hardly any animals left. It was the hunters that saw the declining populations and worked to get seasons and quotas set. Every gun, all ammo, archery gear, fishing gear, a certain % goes DIRECTLY to conservation. How much do you give to conservation efforts?”

What he fails to acknowledge was that the decline in wildlife populations was due to over hunting and trapping in the first place. Their collective denial and their endless rationalizations are truly remarkable. And speaking of those who give most to conservation efforts, I would suggest it is the animals who pay with their lives to satisfy the trophy hunter’s perverted idea of conservation, that contribute the most.

So then, how does the Machiavellian component fit the trophy hunter’s psyche? To recap, Machiavellianism is a character trait where one is so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to further their own goals and pursuits. According to Aimee Daramus, a Chicago based clinical psychologist who was quoted in an October 7, 2021 article in Psych Central, “In nature, you see a lot of kindness, nurturing, and family among animals, but if they want to survive, they still have to eat other animals unless they’re herbivores.” Daramus goes on to explain (paraphrased by the article’s author, Simone Marie), that “Someone with a Machiavellian personality will ascribe to this way of life — even when it’s not a life or death situation, but merely to their advantage.”

Not surprisingly, those with a high MACH-IV score (a psychological index used to measure the degree to which a person displays Machiavellian traits) are often in leadership and political positions. It would not be a stretch to assume that many of the current political leaders in the US, and some in Canada, would score very high on the MACH-IV index.

Psychology Today, a renowned online magazine, reports that there is evidence suggesting “that people high in Machiavellianism are more likely to pursue high-power careers such as politics or law.” In Alberta, Canada, there is an outfitter/trophy hunter turned politician, who became an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). He was able to secure a portfolio that put him in charge of wildlife management among other things. Besides the obvious conflict of interest, why would he even want to be in charge of wildlife stewardship when he, before turning to politics, made his living by killing, or facilitating others to kill, wildlife? If one looks at it from the Machiavellian perspective, it makes perfect sense.

Todd Loewen, MLA, once owned Red Willow Outfitters Ltd., prior to transferring ownership to his family members. What better way to stack the deck in your favour than by becoming the legislative decision maker regarding wildlife management. And during his tenure, he has done just that. He has rolled back protections for species at risk, such as wolverines, increased harvesting quotas on cougars, opened up hunting for ‘problem’ grizzly bears (without specifying what constitutes a problem bear), maintained open season on wolves, and much more. All of these changes benefit trophy hunters and outfitting companies. I can’t say for sure how he would score on the MACH-IV index, but I’m guessing it would likely be on the high end. Minister Loewen carefully crafts his statements to manipulate the public into believing that what he is doing is in the best interests of wildlife and the public. Consider one of his recent online posts that read, “Managing predator populations is also an important part of protecting threatened species like caribou, and big game animals like bighorn sheep, moose, and elk.” He continues, “As with all wildlife in Alberta, cougar populations need to be managed, and hunting plays a key role in that.”

The words that matter most in that statement are, “Hunting plays a key role in that.” It allows trophy hunters to play a major role in managing wildlife clearing the way for them to kill predator species that compete for the big-game animals that trophy hunters covet for their walls. In essence, allowing trophy hunters to kill more predators ensures that there will be more big-game animals like the bighorn sheep, moose and elk, available for trophy hunters to kill. That sounds to me like a win-win for outfitters and trophy hunters. Remember that people who rate high in Machiavellianism will use their positions of power and influence to manipulate situations for their own gain. In this instance, it seems quite likely that Minister Loewen has used his position as minister to benefit himself and the trophy hunting industry as a whole in Alberta.

Craig Packer, an ecologist from Minneapolis, Minnesota, who has spent over 30 years pushing back against lion hunting in Tanzania, was quoted in The Guardian stating, “hunters often share Republican politics, a rural background and religion, leading them to reject evidence showing that species are under threat, because (Packer affects a redneck drawl), ‘only God can be getting rid of the wildlife.’” This is much the same in Alberta as most of Minister Loewen’s supporters are from rural areas and support the United Conservative Party (UCP). In fact, one hunter replied to my comment stating, “You probably voted for Trudeau.”

As for the psychopathy component of the dark triad, that one is a little more difficult to pin down. For those hunters who admitted in their comments that they take pleasure in killing animals, that would seem to meet the threshold for psychopathy or sociopathy. For the countless others who point to conservation or humanitarian efforts as part of their reasoning for killing wildlife, it becomes a little less clear. Perhaps for them it doesn’t rise to the level of being pathological, but to kill wildlife for pleasure, regardless of the reason, seems to suggest a lack of remorse, which is a key indicator of psychopathy.

The fact that the trophy hunting lobby groups invariably resort to the stale argument that they are conservationists or humanitarians really shows the degree to which they are missing the point. They are unanimously oblivious to the fact that they are inflicting pain and suffering onto sentient beings for their own pleasure. And they do so without any remorse or the belief that they are doing anything wrong. “You can see that there is likely to be a close link between these personality dimensions and trophy hunting, given that trophy hunting necessarily involves animal suffering and therefore animal cruelty,” explained Beattie referring to the dark triad. “A lack of empathy and a degree of callousness may well facilitate trophy hunting (and may even be necessary conditions for trophy hunting), and trophy hunting and its depiction in images and films may well facilitate the maintenance of narcissistic flow (another necessary condition).”

I would add that toxic masculinity also plays a role in the mindset of trophy hunters as evidenced by the hundreds of disparaging comments I received in reply to my opposition to trophy hunting. The question remains though, could toxic masculinity be a fourth personality trait in addition to the dark triad that makes up the trophy hunter’s mindset, or is it more likely just a symptom or result of varying degrees of having all three? I think the latter is more likely especially given that the narcissists have a need to feel dominant and superior, which blends well with their grandiosity, entitlement and attention seeking. Jonathon’s misogynistic reply to my comment may be one of the best examples. “You pee sitting down and hold your pinky out while drinking out of a straw is what I get out of that.” Todd’s comment illustrates the narcissistic superiority aspect as he states, ”There's a dumbass that's never hunted and has no idea about the damage wolves or even coyotes do.” Dale took it one step further by attempting to intimidate me. “I enjoy killing wildlife. I also enjoy playing hockey, playing baseball, bitchslapping mouthy dweebs, woodworking, and more. So what?”

What became very clear to me over the course of doing research for this article was that trophy hunters have an intense need to feel superior, not just to the animals they kill, but to those who choose not to kill wildlife for sport. They purposefully diminish and demean those who oppose them by portraying them as weak and ignorant, often describing them with feminine traits, which really just speaks to their misogyny, toxic masculinity and fragile male egos. They are also resolute in defending what they do by framing it as necessary for conservation as well as humanitarianism purposes, but rarely admit to taking pleasure in the act of killing. They demonize predators to sway public opinion in their favour. There is a complete lack of empathy for the animals they hunt, and take enormous pleasure in ending their lives, despite what they may tell you. And lastly, they clearly equate trophy hunting with strength and masculinity, ignoring the obvious fact that overcoming the primitive urge to hunt and kill, requires much more strength of character than to give in to it.

Whether or not trophy hunters possess varying degrees of personality characteristics that constitute the dark triad will continue to be debated, but regardless, there must be a darkness in their souls in order for them to carry out the act of stalking, tormenting and ultimately killing wildlife just for the sheer pleasure of it. Imagine being a trophy hunter and sending your hounds after a cougar, chasing it into exhaustion until it takes refuge high up in a tree. As you saunter up to where the cougar is treed, you peer through your rifle scope, and as you focus in on the terrified animal, you gleefully squeeze the trigger and end its life. I’m not a psychiatrist, but that seems pretty sick to me.

Finally, when you really think about it, I mean really ponder what trophy hunting actually is, it seems grotesque that this remains an acceptable and legal pastime. Hunting was an integral part of the human experience for thousands of years and was once an essential way of providing sustenance. However, hunting has largely gone from being vital for survival, to more of an outdoor hobby for the vast majority of people who partake in it. I have no issue with subsistence hunters who do so in order to feed themselves and their families, but they make up a very small minority of the hunting community. For many, hunting is still seen as a noble pursuit and indeed, US Governor Tim Walz, promoted himself as a proud hunter during his run for Vice President of the United States.

In order for trophy hunting to be seen for what it is, there needs to be a paradigm shift in how we view the animal kingdom and what is considered acceptable treatment of non-human sentient beings. When children or teenagers abuse or kill animals, they are often screened for antisocial personality traits as the mistreatment of animals is a known precursor to violence against people. However, when trophy hunters plan, stalk, and kill big-game animals for the purpose of mounting heads on walls, this deviant behaviour is called sport. It is animal abuse purely for entertainment purposes, and for some incomprehensible reason, it remains legal.

I will never be convinced that there isn’t some level of the dark triad in the psyche of those who kill wildlife simply because they enjoy turning them into inanimate trophies. And the fact that they have so effectively inserted themselves into the conservation arena having ingratiated themselves to numerous groups who are now dependent upon the money that trophy hunting generates, is of great concern.

Cartoon borrowed from greenhumour.com

Think of it as kidnapping in reverse. Wildlife species are being held hostage, but the ransom being paid is for the right to kill them rather than set them free. Batavia et. al share this concern as they posit, “To be inescapably tethered to a system that involves killing and debasing individual nonhuman animals, as the only way to save their populations or species, would be tragic. Trophy hunting violates the dignity of individual nonhuman animals, and is beneath our dignity as human beings. Continuing complicity by conservationists without fully exhausting other options is not now nor has it ever been appropriate. . . We also suggest any claim to “conservation success” is shaky, if “success” is won only by the death and dishonour of those we seek to protect.”