Jeff Crane, President and CEO of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
Having spent a very impactful portion of my life overseas in South Africa, I have seen firsthand the positive effect regulated hunting can have in Africa – for the animals and the people that live alongside them. The time I spent there shaped my life significantly, and I hold these places near and dear to my heart because of that. These experiences left a lasting impression on how I view conservation and wildlife management, and I know what works when it comes to African conservation and communities – because I’ve lived it. Through that lens, I can tell you this: “Big 5” importation bans have significant negative consequences in ways that proponents don’t quite comprehend or blatantly choose to ignore.
So, what’s a “Big 5” importation ban? Well, over the last decade, many U.S. states have sought to restrict the importation of legally harvested game animals, particularly the African “Big 5” species – the African elephant, Cape buffalo, African lion, white and black rhinoceros, and African leopard. Some recent attempts have also stretched the definition of “Big-5” to include other iconic African species. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), the nation’s leading authority in protecting and promoting our outdoor traditions in the halls of government, has been actively opposing these “Big 5” trophy importation bans across the states. CSF’s team of avid hunters, anglers, recreational shooters, and policy professionals works on Capitol Hill and across all 50 states to ensure sportsmen and women’s voices are heard in the policy process.
The legal harvest of Cecil the Lion in 2015 was weaponized by animal rights groups opposed to hunting to draw negative national attention to so-called “trophy hunting.” False representations and animal rights activism are often the driving force behind these legislative efforts that seek to restrict hunters’ abilities to import “Big 5” species. These misguided pieces of legislation can not only affect hunters within those states but also all hunters traveling through such states when returning from Africa.
New York has repeatedly introduced legislation that would ban the import, export, transport, processing, sale, offer for sale, purchase, trade, barter, distribution, or possession of any part or product of the “Big 5” African animals. These bills have become an annual challenge, requiring continued engagement from the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the broader sporting-conservation community to ensure that science-based conservation principles remain at the forefront of the discussion.
In 2026, after yet another effort to advance this problematic policy, CSF and its partners successfully stopped forward movement of the bill in the final days before the legislature recessed , marking another important victory for conservation and the sportsmen and women who support it. This success reflects years of advocacy and education aimed at helping policymakers understand the critical role that regulated hunting plays in funding conservation, supporting wildlife management, and protecting habitats around the world.
New York is not the first state to dive down this path. Other states, including Connecticut, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and more, have also attempted to move forward with similar misguided policies. CSF was active in these states, engaging against these bills to protect conservation and the sporting-conservation community. These pieces of legislation are often framed as moral victories, but they really undermine the very conservation goals their proponents claim to support.
The “Big 5” African species are typically considered to be the most difficult and dangerous game species to pursue (along with the hippopotamus and Nile crocodile), and for that reason, are highly valued by African hunters. Thanks to that, these five species alone generate most of the funding for wildlife authorities in African range nations. In many African countries, this revenue generated from licensed and regulated safari hunting is the source of funding for wildlife conservation and anti-poaching efforts. These funds support national wildlife authorities in managing protected areas, conducting research, and implementing community development projects. For instance, countries like South Africa and Namibia have successfully used hunting revenues to bolster rhino populations and combat poaching.
Preventing hunters from importing harvested animals is intended to discourage them from hunting in Africa at all, thus depriving African wildlife authorities and communities of this conservation funding and essential income. If states were to ban the importation of legally hunted animals, the result is not fewer animals being killed, it’s fewer resources to protect them. These bans do not stop poaching, only hurting law abiding, regulated hunters in the end. Instead, these bans reduce the conservation funding available to combat poaching and the value of wildlife for local communities, making dangerous species like elephants and lions a liability rather than a benefit. Without the income and game meat provided by legal hunting, local communities often lack the motivation to protect dangerous animals, which are otherwise seen as threats or burdens. Laws banning the importation of “Big 5” species threaten conservation, adversely affect sportsmen and women in the U.S., and eliminate benefits for many African people living in the poorest and more remote areas. Additionally, hunting bans undermine the ability of African nations to exercise sovereignty over their natural resources and how they wish to support their communities.
In 2016, a federal court struck down a similar bill to New York’s in New Jersey, stating conflict with the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act actually preempts state efforts to legislate or regulate the importation of endangered or threatened species, such as the African elephant and black and white rhinoceros. Ultimately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “enhancement” import permits for these species because of the benefits generated; the denial of which would deprive these species of proven enhancement – doing the opposite of the “good” that their proponents claim. States attempting to legislatively ban “Big 5” imports could not actually enforce those bans, as they go against federally authorized or permitted imports, so these bans are not only legally vulnerable and without much weight – they are also plainly ineffective.
Despite the precedent set by the successful lawsuit in New Jersey, the sporting-conservation community continues to face pieces of legislation seeking to ban importation. CSF has worked with state legislators to get some of these bills favorably amended by specifically excluding legally sport-hunted items, and successfully got a similar bill vetoed in California. Should New York’s legislation ever pass, it will do nothing more than allow anti-hunters to make a statement, ultimately at the expense of New York taxpayers once the inevitable lawsuit to challenge it was filed.
My perspective on this topic isn’t theoretical; it’s shaped by facts and years spent on the ground in Africa seeing how effective, regulated hunting supports both wildlife and the people who share the land with them. I have seen firsthand how regulated hunting is not the enemy of conservation, but rather one of its most powerful tools. These importation bans, pushed forward under the guise of morality, are not grounded in science, conservation success, or the realities of life on the ground in Africa. Hunters should be celebrated for what they do for conservation, not punished through import bans.
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation will continue to fight these short-sighted efforts wherever they arise, because conservation policy should be informed by fact, not rhetoric. We owe it to the wildlife, the communities who live alongside them, and the sportsmen and women who have long carried the torch of true conservation. These bans are as misleading as they are ineffective, and you can count on CSF to be the wall they break themselves against, whenever and wherever they may arise.