key: cord-0786316-8jh04dvr authors: Tickle, Lara; von Essen, Erica title: The seven sins of hunting tourism date: 2020-07-13 journal: Ann Tour Res DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102996 sha: 983e5d7b9edc62abaeee0d70127c3052abb9a2c2 doc_id: 786316 cord_uid: 8jh04dvr In a review of situational pressures on tourists, we identify seven sins or risk zones that induce moral disengagement and allow for behaviour that would be considered unethical by the same people when not on holiday. The context of hunting tourism reveals the following sins act cumulatively on the hunting tourist: “The Pay Effect”, “The Tourist Bubble”, “Last Chance Tourism”, “The Bucket List”, “When in Rome”, “The False Display”, and “The Saviour”. Identifying these sins and the way hunting tourists draw from them to neutralize eco-guilt are argued to be a first step on the call to set standards and practices within consumptive wildlife tourism consistent with the Precautionary Principle in tourism planning. Hunting tourism as part of wildlife tourism , appears to be increasing in popularity and scope (Moorhouse, Dahlsjö, Baker, D'Cruze, & Macdonald, 2015; Flanagan, 2019) . Nevertheless, trophy hunts and African Hunting Safaris have garnered significant controversy in recent years, inviting unease among the hunting community as to its implications on the public perception of hunting broadly (Øian & Skogen, 2016) . Our study approaches western holiday hunters as practitioners of serious leisure (Green & Jones, 2005) who are also a primary group to partake in commercial hunts such as trophy hunting (see Simon, 2016; Gunn, 2001; Mkono, 2019) . Studies have tended to assess the legitimacy of trophy hunting tourism either from the perspective of public acceptance or ethical argument analysis (see e.g. E. Cohen, 2014; Gunn, 2001) . Increasingly, utilitarian ecological and sustainability impacts of hunting tourism inform such justifications, especially in African regions (Komppula & Gartner, 2013) . The ethics of individual hunting tourists on the ground when engaging in commercial hunting have been considerably less explored than aforementioned sustainability assessments of the industry as a whole. Following this, we do not aim to judge whether hunting of itself is an ethical act; instead our concern is in highlighting practices within particular forms of hunting to which hunters themselves object on ethical grounds. Such a perspective is needed insofar as research has yet to examine how, and in what ways, the hunting tourist experience may facilitate a breach of the hunting ethics one upholds in other hunting contexts. A premise is that because touristic settings are liminal "site[s] of heightened exchange value, subject to nomadic, de-territorializing flows of information and desire" (Katz, 1999, p.148) , one may be less bound to conventions that hold at home, or that touristic settings bring forth deviant norms for conduct. Research on hunters abroad has intimated this may be the case, suggesting from empirical studies that situational pressures in socially and culturally ambiguous field settings in hunting (Kuentzel & Heberleln, 1998) allow hunters to neutralize conduct that they would regard as unethical, borderline or morally questionable in regular circumstances. In this paper, we consider the generalized situational pressures that act on a tourist hunter. Thus, we show how a 'risk https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102996 Received 2 December 2019; Received in revised form 29 June 2020; Accepted 1 July 2020 zone' is created for hunting tourists of what authors have termed ethical fading of one's decision-making (Fritsche, 2005; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004) . In our paper, we identify on the basis of a cross-section of tourism literature seven tropes that hunters risk falling for when they go on a hunting holiday, when they become hunting tourists: "The Pay Effect", "The Tourist Bubble", "Last Chance Tourism", "The Bucket List", "When in Rome", "The False Display", and "The Saviour". These tropes, derived mainly from tourism literature and specifically applied to a hunting context, may be understood as potentially emerging 'ecological sins' in a trend of eco-guilt on the part of tourists (Fredericks, 2014) . In the section that follows, we briefly outline key tenets of western hunting codes of conduct, as they involve ideals of fair chase, minimizing unnecessary suffering and norms of stewardship. Next, we show how the sins in tourism facilitate a breach from these ethics. These cases of moral disengagement are referred to as "sins" to illustrate the faults people commit and the way they neutralize such behaviour. Certainly, "ecological sins", redemption and spirituality are recurring motifs in people's engagement with nature and hunting in modernity (Leopold, 1943; Ortega y Gasset, 1972) and therefore committing ethical errors may be interpreted as crossing the divine (law of nature). We argue these sins are generalizable beyond the hunting tourism context, and have utility for behaviour in several touristic spaces. Indeed, tourists behaving badly are not a new concept, but behaving badly in a way that has serious implications for vulnerable non-human animals merits more research (Kline, 2018) . As to why it is important to illustrate harms in these interactions, we argue that touristic practices actively constitute human-animal relations and establish new moralities (Stone & Sharpley, 2013) . With the increase in hunting tourism, this hence needs to be approached as an arena of importance for constituting hunting ethics. Hunting is a divisive topic; many would call it a categorically sinful act whilst others view it as a holy communion with nature. We take a more pragmatic approach: as any practice, there are more or less morally acceptable forms within it, regardless of one's categorical objection. This makes it possible, for example, to judge and abstain from some harmful animal husbandry practices in farming without taking a position for or against farming per se, just as one can make more or less ethical consumption choices in the supermarket when sufficiently informed about e.g. animal welfare assessments. This study engages with concerns about degenerating conduct in hunting tourism, much of which hunters themselves identify as morally problematic according to their own codes of conduct. At some point, it may be argued that an aggregation of sinful hunting practices in hunting tourism may be detrimental to an overall assessment of hunting. It is beyond the scope of our study to entertain this precise tipping point. For now, we observe that certain formats appear more or less detrimental to animal welfare, and should therefore be scrutinized by hunters themselves going forward. Our discussion raises questions about the ethical implications of the commodification of wildlife; critiques of cultural relativism that ostensibly point to sometimes lax behaviour as permitted on holiday; the social ambiguity of new places, and the role of hunting tourism in mediating the public acceptance of hunting more broadly. We also engage with the self-objection that there is anything like a sharp divide between hunting tourism and 'regular' hunting, or that commercial tourism can easily be demarcated from traditional hunting today which is untrue. In fact, we caution that the blurring of regular and tourist hunting may imply that situational pressures from touristic settings increasingly also infuse everyday forms of hunting. Finally, addressing the dialectic between structure and agency in terms of responsibility for conduct in tourism, we refer to the precautionary principle as outlined by David Fennell in the context of tourism. Despite many of the uncertainties involved in humanenvironment relationships (Fennell, 2011) , the precautionary principle can facilitate the creation of adapted frameworks, such as the seven sins, that lead to better decision-making in the tourism industry and as well for the tourist and consumer (Fennell & Ebert, 2004) . We consider the tourist hunter to be an active member in the development of tourism and the industry. In order for precaution to act as a "planning tool that actualizes the imperative of sustainability, actively managing tourism in a more proactive, futurefocused manner and acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in tourism-related development and activities" (Fennell, 2011 p.75 ) one should also include the agency of the tourist consumer. At home: hunters as nature's shepherds? Hunters often frame themselves as conservationists and stewards of nature (Gunn, 2001; Hofer, Blanco, and TRAFFIC Europe (Program), 2002) . To be sure, this framing is often disputed (Simon, 2016) . It has been said that hunters embody the paradox of considering themselves "animal lovers" while also killing animals for excitement and sport (E. Cohen, 2014) . Understandably, there are innumerable ethical deliberations on whether the hunter can be "sensitive to the animal's interests in avoiding pain and in continuing to live…" (Luke, 1997, p.39 ) and still pull the trigger. Several reasons are given for the killing of animals during a hunt, whether they are utilitarian (Loftin, 1984) , transcending compassion to the violent truth of life and death (Luke, 1997) or a profound spiritual experience (E. Cohen, 2014) . The hunters' paradox of 'killing what you love' is not easily resolvable, but fraught with tensions and cognitive dissonance. Perhaps as a way to resolve some of this anxiety, though for many practical reasons as well, hunting appears to have fashioned itself after an underlying ethic that comprises both species-level and animal welfare virtues (Luke, 1997; Posewitz, 2002; von Essen & Hansen, 2018) . Many hunters see themselves as essential to the wellbeing of animals through wildlife management and argue that without their stewardship, the wildlife situation would be dire (Kaltenborn, Andersen, & Linnell, 2013) . Hunters have as well been attributed with valuing "animal population control aimed at preserving ecological integrity" (Sneddon, Lee, Ballantyne, & Packer, 2016, p.235 ) as part of the stewardship ethic. Part of wildlife management is hunters handling some of the undesirable work, such as tracking and euthanizing injured wildlife from traffic accidents, a service to both society and animal welfare according to hunters (von Essen & Tickle, 2019) . To further illustrate ethical principles "beyond fair chase" (Posewitz, 2002) there are laws that ensure certain standards within hunting and animal welfare are met as illustrated by agreements such as CITES, the IUCN red list, animal welfare laws, the 5 freedoms, and, conservation programs. Hunting ethics however, extend beyond legal stipulations to include complex evolving norms of propriety for sustainably harvesting wildlife (Causey, 1989) . Reflected in law and morality alike, is the belief that animals are no longer property to be used without any regard for welfare (Fennell, 2000) . Between formal laws and informal hunting codes, an ethic of responsibility is reflected within these frameworks (von Essen & Hansen, 2018) , also termed "duty of care" (Fennell, 2000) . This duty of care appears more often than not to be rooted in attachment to land where "the local hunters have taken the hunting grounds into their possession, not as properties, but as landscapes." (Øian & Skogen, 2016 p.116) . Hunters often have familiar spaces where they hunt, as well as certain types of hunting and types of wildlife (von Essen, van Heijgen, & Gieser, 2019)As hunting tourists, they will deviate from this familiarity in various dimensions, especially geographically and culturally, but often times across species and hunting practices. Indeed, hunting tourism is used to broaden their experiences and affirm their hunter identity (Green & Jones, 2005) . When hunters become tourists on unfamiliar grounds, one premise then is that they may lose a key relationship to the land that is behind their ethical conduct. Much of hunters' ethics, whether about respecting animal welfare or ensuring the integrity of future stocks, are grounded in paternalistic stewardship values intimately linked to a connection with place. This place-based ethic is summarized as "ethics of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik)" (Cohen, 2014, p.6) . This is why, moreover, practices that disconnect hunters from their land also undermine the ethical legitimacy of hunting (Ljung, Riley, Heberlein, & Ericsson, 2012) . There is a point, often seen to correspond with the commercialization of the enterprise and the outsourcing of key ecological services to the land, at which hunting instead becomes likened, perhaps extremely, to an unethical blood sport (Cohen, 2014 )hunters go in and out without stewardship motivations. Of course, commercialization in itself takes many forms in hunting, not all of which have deleterious impacts on hunting ethics, as some profitable ventures have proven successful in terms of cultural, ecosystem and wildlife preservation (Freeman & Wenzel, 2009; Lovelock, 2008) . Although in places motivations of killing for the pot, and killing to balance ecosystems appear, hunting is mostly viewed as a sport or serious leisure in western post-industrial societies (Green & Jones, 2005; Morris, 2014) . Additionally, hunting tourism is expanding tourist markets internationally (Newsome & Rodger, 2012; Øian & Skogen, 2016) . The importance of distinguishing hunters and a hunting tourist is that when the hunter pays for the hunting experience, in the form of services with an outfitter, they enter the role of a tourist. Trying to define exactly what a tourist is, is challenged due to the "fuzziness" of the concept (Cohen, 1974 p.549) , nonetheless, the tourist is, among other things, a consumer (Cohen, Prayag, & Moital, 2014) . There are different types of hunting tourists and often people have different understandings of what they entail, such as hunting tourism meaning "trophy hunter" or "foreign hunter" (Komppula & Suni, 2013) . The hunting tourist is a traveler motivated by a defined special interest that contributes to their choice of destination for travelling (Komppula & Suni, 2013) .The destination offers a novelty experience for the hunter of some kind (Green & Jones, 2005) . Hunters will often travel to the places where they hunt, but the hunting tourist travels somewhere to experience something outside of their own hunting norm, whether it is landscape, method of hunting or species they hunt. More specifically, Komppula and Gartner highlight that "Travel and tourism experiences happen outside an individual's daily environment and routine" (2013 p.169). The hunting tourist will not establish a lasting relationship with a place where the hunt takes place; they are a disconnected visitor who is not continuously responsible for the sustainable management of land or wildlife (Holsman, 2000) . This task is outsourced to the hunting outfitter or wildlife manager. Consequently, a hunting tourist will often pay an outfitter or tourist service to aid in the hunting experience, whether it is a trophy hunt, a guide or a package experience with accommodation and food (Eliason, 2014; Lovelock, 2008) . Whilst tourism can refer to people visiting destinations close to home, there is often a palpable n experience of the "tourism time and space" (Uriely, Ram, & Malach-Pines, 2011) . Studies have indicated that people tend to display a "attitude-behaviour gap" (Cohen et al., 2014 p.892) . In this context, the gap concerns when consumers announce caring about ethical standards in their consumption practices, but few actually enact these standards on holiday . These findings clearly alert to the existence of a type of dissonance where ethical behaviour may be communicated but not acted upon when in the role of a tourist. The allure of travelling to exotic places is a large part of tourism. Forecasts predict a rise in tourists willing to travel to more remote and 'unspoilt' natural areas that are often ecologically fragile (Hall, Gossling, & Scott, 2015) . Especially with the arrival of eco-or adventure tourism and "Last Chance Tourism" (Lemelin, Dawson, Stewart, Maher, & Lueck, 2010) , discussed further on in the article. The transaction that takes place between a client and a hunting outfitter foregrounds this study. As stated, the impact of such commercialization has been examined mainly on the level of ecological sustainability in the 'kill it to save it' narrative (Keul, 2018, p.188) . The hunting industry often point to these eco-centric benefits: individual animals may be sacrificed by trophy hunters, so that revenue can be generated to contribute toward the conservation of its species in the wild (E. Cohen, 2014) . As we will note, however, critics point to fallacies in this argument, including the industry's unhelpful targeting of trophy specimens that have breeding potential. A less examined criticism of the integrity of hunting tourism, albeit much harder to study, is the impact of hunters' suspension of ethical norms on animal welfare of the hunted animal. Increasingly, researchers draw attention to animal ethics in non-consumptive wildlife tourism, such as in "The Customer Isn't Always Right-Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism" (Moorhouse et al., 2015) and animal welfare campaigns and magazines such as National Geographic issue on the Hidden cost of wildlife tourism (2019). These studies are however, not paralleled in the context of consumptive wildlife tourism. This may perhaps be because there are categorical objections to such practices that preclude a more nuanced assessment of the degrees of harms within it. In hopes of filling this gap, we have identified seven tropes that often occur when on holiday and that facilitate immoral behaviour and result in ethical implications first and foremost for animals, and to a lesser extent local communities and environments in a hunting tourist context. We stress that 'unethical' behaviour is not predicated on a prior baseline according to a moral theory, e.g. utilitarianism, but on baselines of how hunters hunt in non-touristic settings. The pay-effect There is a growing trend to assign monetary values to nature and wildlife (Bauer & Alexander, 2004) . While hunter tourists pay for the full experience with an outfitter, there are times when the value of the product replaces the value of the experience in tourism (Komppula & Gartner, 2013) . This is manifested in "Itemized pricing of the prey" displays of outfitters (Cohen, 2014, p.10) . Therefore, getting bang for one's buck is a significant driver for many trophy hunters, who may in extreme cases "dispense with the hunt altogether and go directly to the kill" (Causey, 1989, p.333) . The monetary aspect of commercial hunting also means that tourists who perceive "money as power could make them feel that they deserve freedom on their vacation and this could induce them to ignore and transgress norms and regulations." (Li & Chen, 2017 p.154) . Outfitters typically advertise their hunting packages not with pictures of landscape and culture, but with successful hunters happily posed with animal trophies. Getting "your money's worth" is a standard within tourism to such an extent that "value for money" is a sorting option on dominating websites such as TripAdvisor and Bookings.com. Main concerns of hunters are that hunting tourism raises prices and alienates residents from local landscapes (Øian & Skogen, 2016) , often giving intra-community tensions between those commercialize their business for outsiders and those that stay true to traditional economies of hunting (Gunnarsdotter, 2005) . Outfitters may hold themselves to high hunting standards and be highly knowledgeable about wildlife but, pressure is felt if the outfitter is unable to deliver a successful hunt . Reprimanding hunters over unethical conduct may be challenging considering pressure to perform as "polite and service-minded" hosts (Daugstad & Kirchengast, 2013, p.181) . As a business, outfitters sometimes offer refunds if they are unable to supply a suitable quarry (Bauer & Alexander, 2004; Eliason, 2014) adding to the pressure to deliver. Simon (2019) notes that this commodification of hunting trophies that it impacts animal welfare; some bucks have been bred so severely for the size of their antlers that they have trouble holding their heads up. Moreover, the act of paying for a hunt may absolve the hunting tourist's obligation to care for wildlife. A common critique among self-styled 'traditional' hunters is that it replaces the work otherwise spent by the hunter stewarding the environment by feeding game and contributing to environmental improvement (Holsman, 2000) . Insofar as hunting defenders name these activities as central in forging a sense of community with animals and more defensible ethic (King, 2010) . The outsourcing of such activities to care-takers replaces any stewarding done by the paying hunter. In von Essen and Hansen (2018), a Swedish hunter criticizes such touristic hunting on account of "You don't step in to do the stewarding stuff. You just go out a few days a year, the prices are through the roof so when you're out there you want to shoot yourself an animal. You want to maximize your investment" (p.10). Likewise, Franklin (2008) aptly describes this for hunting tourists: "There is nothing but their own pleasure and interest binding them to the place" adding that "nothing about these experiences that galvanizes a longer-term relation of care" (p.41, our italics). The tourist bubble refers to the partly insulated and inauthentic setting that is created around tourists visiting a new environment,also understood as an "environmental bubble" (Cohen, 1974) . The tourist bubble usually includes tourists going to other countries, or places of cultural and territorial variation, and a bubble is created when those variations are tempered by travel institutions to soften culture shock or an intense sense of otherness (Jacobsen, 2003) . Hence, one may be in a foreign culture while existing socially outside of it (Smith, 1977) . This is compounded when hunting outfitters often hire hunting guides from western countries (Lemieux & Clarke, 2009 ) which increases the cultural buffer enforcing the tourist bubble. Consequently, outfitters and travel agents often advertise the authentic cultural experience, but what they offer tend to be tourist-mediated forms of engagement (Jacobsen, 2003) . The hunter is dependent upon the outfitter to learn about the local wildlife situation and whether animals are managed ethically and sustainably which, within the confines of a constructed hunting package as a tourist bubble is difficult to see (Carrier & Macleod, 2005) . If one looks at hunting outfitters in Central and Southern Africa, such as Namibia, the bubble reifies parts of the colonial history. The neo-colonial presentation of hunting is common as "Many from the new world are attracted to the old world of hunting with great cultural significance, dress, protocol and arcane practices such as blooding the hunter" (Lovelock, 2008 p.5) . Mkono (2019) has argued that the western hunter is given a chance to play out a previous colonial self, which in turn produces images and wounds of the colonial past. The aim of the hunter is not to engage with local culture but rather a fetishized and romanticized version of the hunting culture they expect and is exported there. Furthermore, research on the tourist bubble suggests the latter is sustained as people are not always the adventurous explorers they fancy themselves to be on holiday, but creatures of habit and comfort. They want an experience of the local and authentic, but they also do not want their leisure experience to be too different from their everyday lives so that they sacrifice certain comforts, such as being able to pay with their credit cards or sleep in a safe and comfortable environment (McLean & Hurd, 2011) or enjoy nice food and drink (Eliason, 2014) . The bubble is thus selectively assembled, and dependent on the choices of the tourist. Eliason (2014) notes that outfitters are expected to deliver comfort and familiarity to keep patrons happy during hunting trips. Therefore, the hunting experience can be said to be an amalgamation of tourist preferences and the outfitter predicting their expectations, with an added flourish of selected local cultural features in a local landscape (Jacobsen, 2003) . The hunting package is neither a reproduction of hunting back home nor an authentic experience of local hunting culture, but a carefully curated hybrid of both. In the tourist bubble, the hunter is less able to see the wider picture (Carrier & Macleod, 2005) and may embark on a hunting trip that, with a broader understanding of the locality, would otherwise be considered unethical. Staged authenticity in this bubble effectively obscures the actual impact of one's actions whilst giving off an appealing wholesome sense of authentic reality (Chhabra, Healy, & Sills, 2003) . In the tourist bubble, both the outfitter and the hunter subscribe to a reality where the narrative suits their purposes and unethical or potentially destructive behaviour is not acknowledged. Nowhere is the phenomenon of "loving to death" more manifested than in 'last chance tourism', whether it is a fragile destination or threatened species (Dawson et al., 2011) . Through last-chance tourism, wildlife and ecosystems are being loved to death as people try to see them before they are destroyed or changed beyond recognition (Dawson et al., 2011; Lemelin et al., 2010) . There is strong attraction that pulls people to disappearing destinations, similar to the allure of being the first to do something so is there to being the last to experience it (Dawson et al., 2011) . Marketing to desires where tourists dream of being explorers and adventurers is a strong tool. It has been contended that tourists often visit places to gain social capital, to appear travelled and cosmopolitan (Dawson et al., 2011; Jacobsen, 2003) . Hence, for hunters, part of the appeal of the "Big Five" and "the Dangerous Five" lay in their scarcity and rarity. Overwhelmingly, the selection of hunting tourist packages, such as those by "Diana Hunting Tours" or "Book Your Hunt Inc", reflect an interest in charismatic, dwindling megafauna in remote places of the world (Hausmann, Slotow, Fraser, & Minin, 2017) . As Dawson puts it "Last chance tourism (LCT) plays on the same sense of rarity, pristineness, and elusiveness that is the foundation for the 'firsts' and draws on the elitism of peak or continent 'bagging' and the lure of authenticity in the exotic. (2011 p.251). Certainly "bagging" is part of hunting, where the result of a successful hunting trip is to bag an animal, a trophy, meat, pelt or story (Keul, 2018) . The chance to shoot some of the rarest and most charismatic wild megafauna before they disappear is a draw for hunters, especially if they believe, as the campaigns of the trophy hunting lobby make clear, it will help them in the wild. There is a sense of exclusivity in this that plays to the fantasy of the adventurer within the hunter but also altruistic motives around conservation. However, it would appear in Last Chance Tourism that "the desire to consume vulnerable spaces (and species) seems to outweigh tourists' commitments to supporting sustainable economies or ecological preservation" (Dawson et al., 2011 p.262) . Translating this to hunting exotic species in remote vulnerable ecosystems, the growing market of last chance tourism (ibid.) can prove to be a greater threat to fragile species such as the rhinoceros or wild African lion as pressure increase from hunting. Last Chance Tourism, driven by the self-interest of travelers, places pressure on fragile ecosystems and fauna; even spurring on unethical commercial practices to meet consumer demands which eventually speed up the degeneration process of the last chance destination. As a western cultural idiom, bucket list experiences are a big theme in tourism with countless articles promoting places to see, things to do, try, consume and experience "in your lifetime". Bucket lists cater to dreams of life-fulfillment, often through the medium of spending lots of money "in the pursuit of happiness" (Thurnell-Read, 2017). The bucket list trope is similar to last chance tourism in that they both cater to opportunistic and hurried desires; although, last chance tourism is about 'before they die' and the bucket list is 'before I die' -operating on a more egocentric level. The idea "that travel experiences offer self-fulfillment and are a measure the success or meaningfulness of one's life" (Thurnell-Read, 2017 p.58) is reflected in hunting where "every hunter dreams about shooting the 'big' one at least once in his life." (Komppula & Gartner, 2013 p.175) . Research shows that entire countries have been labelled 'bucket list destinations' for hunters, like South Africa, Kenya and Tanzania (Lemieux & Clarke, 2009) . The bucket list trope may appear to be personal but, is a narrative that is being used by the tourism industry to "present the accumulation of specific tourism experiences as a necessary task" (Thurnell-Read, 2017 p.65) in order to show others that you have 'lived well'. Hence, the bucket list aims both at self-actualization, and conspicuous consumption; it has internal and external functions. As in any sport, hunting often involves competition with oneself and, to a lesser extent, against other hunters (Morris, 2014) , in the form of the most sizeable trophies and most exotic hunting experiences. It is said that the hunter, while he may fancy himself alone in the wilderness, ultimately "requires an audience" (Strychacz, 1993) . Sharing pictures of rare quarry is a popular outlet for this (Kalof & Fitzgerald, 2003) . The Bucket List mentality also explains the sanctity 'hunting trophy lists' such as The Boone and Crockett Club where the number of trophies you can tick off this list becomes an indicator of how successful a hunter you are. They offer awards to the hunters who achieve the 'world slam' (killing all representatives of a subspecies of a particular species, or killing the largest individual of a particular species in a given year) (MacDonald, 2005) . The idea of bagging an exclusive opportunity and certain species is a draw (Foote & Wenzel, 2008; Dawson et al., 2011) . Another experience is the Macnab Challenge in Scotland marketed as an exclusive adventure and "ultimate test" of hunter prowess (Henton, 2017) . Typing "bucket list hunting" into Google reveals lists such as "Ultimate Bucket List: Top 10 North American Hunts You Must Try Before You Die" and "7 Bucket List Hunts You Can Start Planning Right Now". These lists align with some common bucket lists concepts such as existentialist consciousness about finite lifetime and the pressure to plan it now (Thurnell-Read, 2017). The proverb 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do', means that when you are "…abroad or in an unfamiliar environment you should adopt the customs or behaviour of those around you." (Lexico Dictionaries, n.d.). The maxim is an endorsement of cultural relativism, often observed in touristic settings, which stands in opposition to universalism where ethical principles stand on their own apart from cultural norms (Fennell, 2000) . Descriptive cultural relativism merely observes that morality is a construct to a particular society at a particular time and place, while normative cultural relativism insists that the conventions in any one place can never be unethical as they are specific to this culture. When in Rome, conversely, takes normative ethical relativism further by insisting that visitors to a society, even if they come with their own set of ethics, should adapt to the conventions of the destination culture. As such, 'When in Rome' has been used to sanction behaviour that is considered unethical at home and touristic spaces have been seen as zones of "permissiveness and indulgence, which should not be judged by the ethical criteria deployed in daily life" (Cohen, 2018, p.6) . When in Rome offers the perhaps clearest mechanism by which a hunting tourist knowingly departs from their ethics 'at home'. On the face of it, hunters do not appear to be cultural relativists regarding hunting ethics. They are under normal circumstances quick to condemn the practices and conventions of other hunting cultures. Whether this is a particular use of dogs, handling of meat or killing practices (Colomy & Granfield, 2010) . Various hunting communities of practice try to lay claim to the 'right' and 'true' form of hunting at the exclusion of lesser practices . Such ethnocentrism or national pride may be present when hunters compare themselves to outsiders, but seems sometimes to be relaxed or overtaken by a "When in Rome" mentality when visiting these destinations on holiday. Here, hunters try new techniques that are unethical or illegal at home (such as bow-hunting), dine on game meat they would otherwise not try (Mkono, 2019) , and adapt their conduct to the context. In so doing, however, hunters who are not used to cultural customs and lack knowledge of local wildlife and ecosystems may cause more harm to the hunted animal than they expect. Hunters unused to another weapon may opt to use it to align with local customs (Komppula & Gartner, 2013) potentially increasing the margin for mistakes. Hunting wildlife whose anatomy and behaviour is unfamiliar can cause undue harm as the ethical principle of a "quick kill" is at risk when one is lacking in training and knowledge. Witnessing direct ethical transgressions due to peer pressure is understandably difficult, yet in research into hunting tourist types in Finland "The major finding of [their] study is nevertheless the notion of the differences that were found in the hunting behavior of individual hunters in terms of hunting in their usual hunting grounds and hunting tourism." (Komppula & Suni, 2013, p.58 ). The study also discovered "novelty-seeking behaviour" in tourist hunters.A study into moose hunting in Ontario showed that outfitters were less supportive than locals to hunting calves as they have less demand for them by clientele (Hunt & Davis, 2017) , which may be another indication of varying judgements in wildlife management between tourism and locals. Finally, we refer to extensive empirical studies that have indicated hunters' willingness to not only forego moral codes but also break the law when they are visitors in a place. So-called 'transient' hunters (Brown, Decker, & Enck, 1995) , whether these are "leisure seeking city dwellers" (Heley, 2010, p.323) tourists from other states (Eliason, 2014) or poachers from afar (von Essen & Hansen, 2018) , are morally differentiated by local hunters on account of violating local rules. Outsider hunters habitually become 'ideal offenders' (Colomy & Granfield, 2010) . Whether such observations are grounded in defensive localism and territoriality (Eliason, 2014) or reality is sometimes difficult to assess, but research on poaching shows that passing lone hunters are more likely to violate game laws than ones with social and familial ties to the local community (Eliason, 2013) . Out of all the tropes The False Display is probably the most discussed in popular media. We define this "sin" as the reduction of situations and events into snapshots and superficial displays mainly through the means of photographs and display of animal parts. There is no denying social media has spurred much debate regarding the contrived images we create around ourselves. Photos of people and wildlife are being widely circulated online, often to the detriment of the pictured animals and their species at large (Moorhouse et al., 2015) . This trend is not limited to non-consumptive wildlife tourism but is prevalent within hunting and hunting tourism, from trophy photos (Kalof & Fitzgerald, 2003) to showing the "kill shot" in videos (McGuigan & Clark-Parsons, 2019) . Despite online backlash toward trophy hunting pictures featured online, articles and influencers who name and shame individuals, most famously in the case of Cecil the lion (Mkono, 2018) , the circulation of animal images in hunting continues. Tourist hunters may try to follow guidelines provided by hunting organizations, such as Safari Club International, on how to provide tasteful photos of their quarry. Some hunters abstain from sharing any pictures at all especially since hunting photos are generally met with heavy criticism online. It is understandable to want to capture and commemorate tourist hunt, however, there are issues when this becomes its main purpose. The animal is objectified and reduced to a fetischized trophy, the highlight of the hunt becomes the killing and display of the animal and the hunting process and experience falls away. Connecting to deviant tourism behaviour; "many types of deviant tourist behaviors show the influence of vanity. For example, some tourists will break regulations to take a photo or take away or damage something to keep as a souvenir." (Li & Chen, 2017,p.153) . Certainly, when the aim of the hunt is the display, codes of hunting ethics may be broken in pursuit of the perfect animal picture, trophy or other animal parts. This can lead to unethical hunts and disrespectful displays of the trophies such as the case of the Canadian Carter couple kissing over a lion carcass (Tacopino, 2019) . Such display does not go with the often somber reality of hunting where the death of an animal is meant to symbolize the natural "circle of life" as valued by hunters and stewardship principles (E. Cohen, 2014; Gunn, 2001) . Other forms of distortion happen in animal images within tourism such as Dinseyfication where trivialization of an animal leads to "images that are devoid of true meaning in efforts to be distinctive" (Fennell, 2011, p.196) . The images and portrayal of animals we have discussed do not show context but the "inability or unwillingness to learn and appreciate the animal beyond its cultural or financial value is a form of arrogance" (Fennell, 2000 p.30 ) leads to a type of animal-human disconnect (Fennell, 2000 (Fennell, , 2011 . The human-animal disconnect observed in many trophy hunting photos can also be found in other fetischized objects such as taxidermy displays, hides, feathers and animal parts that occur in tourism. Disneyfication is not a new term but, we choose to identify it here as part of the process where animals and animal parts are removed from their natural existence and distorted as new meanings are imposed upon them. We refer to a phenomenon whereby the tourist hunter visits a place in which artefacts and animals hold no special meaning to them in terms of knowledge of conditions, production or rearing and the consumption industry fills this void by imposing false meanings on the "products" (Simon, 2019) . In Louisiana the alligator is constructed as a symbolic animal but also as a type of mascot; "Kitschy lacquered alligator heads, teeth, and the image of the alligator on any sort of clothing can be found in plenty at all major tourist destinations" (Keul, 2018 p.184) . Hence, the animals that hunters engage with are "caricatures and reproductions" that ultimately invoke a desire to experience more fakes (Bulbeck, 2005) . The alligator in this case is exploited, farmed breeding to supply exotic meat, skins and hunting targets, as well as showcased in tourist tours. It becomes a veneer that the tourism industry relies on to commodify "natural" attractions and sell to tourists without being attached to the physical and moral reality of alligator exploitation. In this setting, the animals perform "a fiction of themselves as wild" (Desmond, 1999, p.151) . Due to this misrepresentation it may be difficult for a hunter to know if an animal is from a farm or completely wild, there is no labelling on the animal. Nevertheless, this is not a priority because wildlife management is not the responsibility of the tourist hunter but instead of the local outfitter. Through the False Display both the animal's welfare and dignity may be degraded (Shani, 2009) . If "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", we need to be cautious about the cloaking of tourist hunting practices through altruistic motives. The Saviour sin is connected to the rise of ecotourism, charity tourism and volunteering tourism (voluntourism) (Thurnell-Read, 2017) . Through "good intentions" and the "quest to be associated with the hero image" (Uriely et al., 2011 (Uriely et al., p.1063 , questionable conduct can be sanctioned. Hero stories for trophy hunters and other altruistic travelers serve to maintain a positive sense of self (Copes & Williams, 2007) . Indeed, the hunter can see themselves as a Byronic hero, a type of anti-hero, who must do the difficult and, even despicable, in order to serve the greater good, by shooting an endangered animal to protect its species (Holsman, 2000) . People are the protagonists of their own life story, and as such, we end up making "creative narratives of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and that justify what we have done" (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004 p.225) . For hunters it is a common rationalization that trophy hunting is "…driven by the desire to save animals from the threats of extinction, poaching and other such undesirable possibilities" (Mkono, 2019 p.253) . Such altruistic positions have been criticized by Bulbeck (2005) as an empty 'New Age Spirituality' that amounts largely to reassurance for wildlife tourists. There is further reason to be critical of such selfless characterization as research suggests that altruistic tourism is designed more to cater to the needs of the tourists than the needs of the communities that they purportedly serve (Benson & Wearing, 2012, p.243) , whether these be species populations or local people. Benson & Weaving maintain that such tourists become the 'new colonialists' who exotify the predicament of suffering African communities or its ailing wildlife, and who may insert themselves as white saviours. This is shown to have the actual impact of both criminalizing the hunting practices of local natives, declaring their practices 'contrary' to the interests of biodiversity conservation, and taking their jobs (MacDonald, 2005) .Especially since, as we observed, hunting outfitters often employ professionals from Western countries. Equally, the actual impacts of trophy hunting on biodiversity conservation is disputed and demand for certain wildlife through hunting industries can actually increase pressure on wild populations (Williams & Sas-Rolfes, 2019) . In addition to this, Holsman (2000) shows on the ideas of Belden and Russonello (1996) that tourist hunters are likely to be of the brand 'disconnected sportsmen', who are the least likely among hunters to support biodiversity. Further, he notes while support may be theoretical, it often fails when species conservation negatively impacts hunters or conflict with private property. This point is echoed also by Simon (2016) , who harnesses the concerns of Aldo Leopold regarding the culture of competition around trophy hunting, and the fact that economic resources rather than skill or local knowledge constitute success. All of this points to dubious connections between hunters' trophy pursuit and any genuine pursuit of biodiversity conservation. Our seven identified tropes may be understood as pressure release valves that remove societally imposed norms for a limited time, granting them a liminal license to indulge in deviant behaviour. Importantly, they are interrelated: a Touristic Bubble effect is reproduced by way of When in Rome mechanisms and by the pay-effect, and the unethical behaviour that follows it may be neutralized by techniques of self-deception used in The Saviour sin, so that the behaviour can be continued. Cumulatively, the sins help carve out hunting tourism as a space for exemption and hedonism. Such detachment from societal norms has meant that many scholars have seen leisure and tourism as spaces for enacting freedom (von Essen & Tickle, 2019) and resisting dominant conventions. In our seven sins, we find evidence that the suspension of conventional norms for propriety and hunting ethics may have the opposite effect. That is, they do not set the individual free so much as they reproduce established power structures, colonial relations (Desmond, 1999) and reify dominionistic values toward animals. As we have seen, the way hunting tourism is set up rests on a perpetuation of core-periphery colonial dynamics, where built-in justifications for tourist hunters coming to hunt rest on 'white saviour, rapacious native' narratives (MacDonald, 2005) , and where the site may become a carefully curated pastiche of the real thing, complete with caricatures. Insofar as hunters demonstrate greater regard for animal welfare in recent decades (Samuel, 1999) , cases of touristic hunting in many ways represent a step backward and cement animals comfortably as commodities. Our central premise is that the seven sins are indulged in touristic settings leading to straying from fairly established principles within western hunting ethics. Such indulgence is not a form of maverick hunter going off-piste to discover new vistas of hunting but instead they are a tourist falling for the typical trappings that exist within the tourist world. Our review of the sins suggests that there may be an inverse relationship between ethics and commodification in hunting. The monetary exchange can divide the hunt into various resalable parts (Gunnarsdotter, 2005) potentially disregarding ethical principles of hunting. Money, as argued in the Pay Effect, may also facilitate sensations of power in tourism where they expect to have their needs met and care less about other's approval leading to deviant behaviour (Li & Chen, 2017) . In turn, the commercialization of hunting and the commoditization of prey may ultimately degrade the intensity of the experience (E. Cohen, 2014) . With increased commodification of animals, they are collapsed from process into product. In the eyes of many hunters, this "is not hunting" (Cohen, 2014; Gunn, 2001; Komppula & Suni, 2013) , another issue where hunters fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy where they distance themselves from unethical behaviour rather than confront and modify it. This attitude is also observable on a level of scholarship; consumptive wildlife tourism like hunting tend to be subject to broad assessments of 'good' or 'bad', thus precluding investigations into a diversity of practices within it. The idea of the precautionary principle is future focused planning to protect local identity, culture and environments from threats and irreversible damage (Fennell & Ebert, 2004) . The existence of a referential framework to avoid ethical misconduct when in a foreign space would benefit hunting that depends on clear ethical standards to garner acceptance. More importantly, it could prevent damaging behaviour and a lowering of ethical standards to suit the demands of the individual tourist whilst highlighting the importance of the tourists' responsibility (Kline, 2018) . In this way, the precautionary principle is an expedient approach to recognizing the responsibility of both structure (industry) and agent (tourist). We note that while killing the animal is the result of all these practices, how one engages with wildlife is of high importance the hunting community (Gunn, 2001; Holsman, 2000; . The fault lies not in the act of being a tourist (or a hunter for that matter) but in falling into a pattern of unethical behaviour that, as described in the seven sins, are brought forward within the realm of tourism. Spiritual motives and concern for spirit and soul have been expressed to be of high priority by trophy hunters, seconded by emotions and desires to fulfill hunting dreams (Radder, 2005) . Hunting is a draw because of meaningful pursuit coupled with historical tradition, ritual (Gasset, 2007; Posewitz, 2002) , and holistic experience (Komppula & Suni, 2013; Lovelock, 2008) . Trophy hunters often emphasize the trophy but in unison with "exploration, discovery, and learning… [as]core intellectual motives" (Radder, 2005 (Radder, ,p.1142 ) and achieve a "peak experience" through such hunts (Komppula & Gartner, 2013; Radder, 2005) . Tourist hunts that achieve these standards are intensely rewarding for the hunter as well as contribute to conservation and cultural exchange if handled correctly (Freeman & Wenzel, 2009; Gunn, 2001) . Freeman and Wenzel have championed polar bear hunting in Inuit territories as more sustainable than polar bear viewing due to valuable cultural exchange with the local culture along with regulated species management (Freeman & Wenzel, 2009 ) indeed, if "wildlife pays, wildlife stays" (Fennell, 2011, p.194) . Awareness of the potential for moral disengagement to happen during a holiday is a first step toward mediating behaviour aboard. Since the tourist space is varied across the world and of a transitory nature (Tribe & Mkono, 2017) it is necessary to highlight individual responsibility in travelers and that they are part of shaping the environment they chose to holiday in (Kline, 2018) . It is especially challenging to enforce legal regulations across all countries where one may hunt. Therefore, the precautionary principle could be instilled in the tourist and the outfitter to prevent hunting tourism from becoming a metaphorical Gomorrah of unethical behaviour. While not all hunting tourism is the same, encouraging the industry and its consumers to think of challenges in the form of seven sins of hunting can facilitate appropriate risk management in order to avoid falling into patterns of unethical or unsportsmanlike behaviour (McGuigan & Clark-Parsons, 2019; Morris, 2014) . Such a pursuit is in the service of the self-preservation of hunting as much as species conservation and animal welfare. The uncertainty inherent in tourism development (Fennell, 2011) contributes to the liminal space that is hard to predict and regulate, especially on a global level. Therefore, when it concerns animal tourism, welfare organizations such as World Animal Protection direct campaigns toward informing tourist online. Informing tourists of the consequences of their behaviour through applied ethics rather than deontological "Do Not" posts appears to be more sustainable in the long term (Fennell, 2000) . Within the hunting community there has been a long-standing concern for degrading ethical conduct due to societal trends and modern factors (Cohen, 2014; Leopold, 1943; von Essen & Hansen, 2018) . Nevertheless, these concerns uttered by many in the hunting community are paralleled by the common refusal to acknowledge distasteful or damaging hunting acts. Cases illustrating the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy would be hunters dismissing other hunters as "poachers", "hillbillies" or "that's not hunting". Problematic cases of hunting tourism illustrate that the hunting community cannot continue to disassociate from certain cases whilst lamenting the degradation of ethical standards of hunters. Tourism hunting is very much a part of hunting and will likely continue to be. Hunters understand that the continuation of the activity is based upon levels of societal acceptance of their practices (Ljung et al., 2012) . Hence the need for individual hunters to act responsibly is paramount to the continuation of hunting, but more importantly for hunters to understand that despite the liminal holiday space, they are subject to the same moral responsibilities as everywhere else. Our study emphasizes the importance of the individual, who operationalizes ethics and "in order for ethics to have utility, it needs to be exercised regularlynot unlike the muscles of the body…" (Fennell, 2011 p.12) . Nevertheless, ethics need to be cultivated also on a structural level. For now, the seven sins are mainly directed at the "decision maker" tourist hunter so they will not "leave their ethics at home" (Kline, 2018) . This paper is a step toward creating memorable risk-zones for hunters (and hopefully other tourists engaging with wildlife) to keep in mind when going on holiday. We respond to the call to set standards and practices within consumptive wildlife tourism. Considering the negative image that hunting tourism can have, and the importance that societal acceptance plays for the future survival of hunting (Ljung et al., 2012; von Essen & Tickle, 2019) these sins are advised to steer clear off as each hunter can be an unwitting ambassador for hunting. We conclude with Causey's point that we need to consider the extent to which the hunting community truly must commit to defending and protecting all forms of hunting, or whether it can start to criticize some unethical commercial elements without chastising hunting as a whole (Causey, 1989) . In a time of broader "eco-guilt" (Fredericks, 2014) and the Catholic Church contemplating adding "ecological sins" to the Catechism (Esteves, 2019) we find that the Seven Sins of Hunting Tourism are a fine way to start. None. Hunting and fishing tourism Human values and nature's future: American's attitudes on biological diversity Volunteer tourism: Commodified trend or new phenomenon Preliminary insights about the sociocultural importance of hunting and trapping Facing the wild: Ecotourism, conservation, and animal encounters Bursting the bubble: The socio-cultural context of ecotourism On the morality of hunting Staged authenticity and heritage tourism Who is a tourist?: A conceptual clarification Recreational hunting: Ethics, experiences and commoditization Introduction Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities Losing Samson: Nature, crime, and boundaries Techniques of affirmation: Deviant behavior, moral commitment, and subcultural identity Authenticity and the pseudo-backstage of agri-tourism Ethical considerations of last chance tourism Staging tourism: Bodies on display from Waikiki to sea world Policing the poachers in the United States: A qualitative analysis of game wardens and profiling Recruiting clients in the outfitting industry: A qualitative analysis of Montana outfitters Catechism will be updated to include ecological sins, pope says Tourism and applied ethics Tourism and animal ethics Tourism and the precautionary principle Huge Rise in Imports of Hunting Trophies. The Times Conservation hunting concepts, Canada's inuit and polar bear hunting Tourism and the consumption of wildlife: Hunting, shooting and sport fishing Journal for the Study of Religion The nature and significance of polar bear conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic Serious leisure, social identity and sport tourism Environmental ethics and trophy hunting Från arbetsgemenskap till fritidsgemenskap. Den svenska landsbygdens omvandling ur locknevis perspektiv The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability: 1st edition (hardback) Ecotourism marketing alternative to charismatic megafauna can also support biodiversity conservation The new squirearchy and emergent cultures of the new middle classes in rural areas Hidden cost of wildlife tourism The lion's share of the hunt: Trophy hunting and conservation: A review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES Goodwill hunting? Exploring the role of hunters as ecosystem stewards Hunter and tourist outfitter preferences for regulating moose hunting in northeastern Ontario The tourist bubble and the Europeanisation of holiday travel Reading the trophy: Exploring the display of dead animals in hunting magazines Predators, stewards, or sportsmen -How do norwegian hunters perceive their role in carnivore management? The hotel Kracauer. Differences Consuming the king of the swamp: Materiality and morality in South Louisiana alligator tourism Hunting -philosophy for everyone: In search of the wild life Abstracting animals through tourism. Tourism experiences and animal consumption contested values, morality and ethics Hunting as a travel experience: An auto-ethnographic study of hunting tourism in Finland and the USA Identifying hunting tourist types -An exploratory case study from Finland Why do hunters skybust? Personal disposition or social influence Last-chance tourism: The boom, doom, and gloom of visiting vanishing destinations The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa Wildlife in American culture The destructive power of money and vanity in deviant tourist behavior Eat prey and love: Game-meat consumption and attitudes toward hunting The Morality of Hunting Tourism and the consumption of wildlife: Hunting, shooting and sport fishing A critical analysis of hunters Global hunting grounds: Power, scale and ecology in the negotiation of conservation This Kill Shot Is Brought to You By…: An Analysis of Hunting Television in the United States Kraus' Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. G -Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects SeriesJones & Bartlett The age of digital activism in tourism: Evaluating the legacy and limitations of the Cecil anti-trophy hunting movement Positive tourism in Africa The customer isn't always right-Conservation and animal welfare implications of the increasing demand for wildlife tourism The sport status of hunting A handbook of tourism and the environment Meditations on Hunting Property and possession: Hunting tourism and the morality of landownership in rural Norway Beyond Fair Chase. FalconGuides Motives of international trophy hunters Know hunting: Truths, lies and myths Tourists' attitudes toward the use of animals in tourist attractions: An empirical investigation The competitive consumption and fetishism of wildlife trophies Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism Animal welfare values and tourist behaviour Deviance, dark tourism and "dark leisure": Towards a (re)configuration of morality and the taboo in secular society Trophy-hunting as a trope of manhood in Ernest Hemingway's "Green Hills of Africa Couple ripped for 'romantic' pic next to lion they killed Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior What"s on your bucket list?' Tourism, identity and imperative experiential discourse The practice of hunting as a way to transcend alienation from nature Psychoanalytic sociology of deviant tourist behavior Policing peers between law and morality: A socio-legal perspective on managing misconduct in hunting Leisure or labour: An identity crisis for modern hunting? Hunting communities of practice: Factors behind the social differentiation of hunters in modernity Born captive: A survey of the lion breeding, keeping and hunting industries in South Africa Lara Tickle is a PhD candidate of Environmental Communication researching the changing ethics of contemporary sport hunters in Sweden PhD, is an associate professor of Environmental Communication, with fields of expertise in hunting sociology, human-animal studies and environmental ethics We would like to express our gratitude and give special thanks to the following esteemed academics who have improved our manuscript with their helpful comments and discussions: Anke Fischer, Carol Kline, Muchazondida Mkono, Adrian Franklin, Brent Lovelock, and Erika Andersson Cederholm.