For many centuries, gathering and collecting have been among the most rudimental ways of obtaining food for local communities worldwide. To augment their diets, many societies engage in hunting wild animals. Governments and conservationists in many states have outlawed the tradition, thus denying the people their livelihood: killing animals for food and commercial purposes which has led to their impoverishment. Basing their argument against the backdrop of financial losses, the organizations have failed to capture the multidimensional benefits that accrue to the people from coursing and trapping wild animals (Strong & Silva, 2020). Besides, they miss the major reasons why those located near the parks hunt. Conversely, the reasons include sourcing for household meat, managing the conflict between animals and human beings, and generating income for the latter’s families. Conversely, the local communities argue that the bodies against poaching care for animals while they disregard people (Strong & Silva, 2020). This paper highlights the article’s credibility by proving that the authors carried out research and shows its usefulness to readers and policymakers through various cases on the impacts of hunting prohibitions among the communities. The credibility of the Article The article was not only published in a biological conservation journal, but also by academicians. Besides, the authors have carried out research to support their assertions. For example, they have utilized various approaches to understand the underlying challenges of the ban on hunting. The analysis of interviews conducted in South Africa where 435 respondents from three areas surrounding the protected regions participated prove how the prohibitions have impoverished the people (Strong & Silva, 2020). Also, the scholars have utilized the capability approach proposed by Amartya Sen to understand the impact of the ban as highlighted in the article. Moreover, studies done in Namibia and Mozambique where the state and the private sector carried out similar conservation policies make the article credible (Strong & Silva, 2020). Further, the article contradicts early findings on poaching in Namibia. It shows the link between anti-hunting costs and conservancy perception (Strong & Silva, 2020). As such, the aforementioned examples show the credibility of the article. The Usefulness of the Article This information is useful since it highlights issues that other researchers have not discussed through the introduction of a different view. Unlike previous works that supported the prohibition of hunting without considering its impact on the local communities, as proposed by conservationists, the article highlights how anti-poaching laws undermine such initiatives and diminish their viability. For example, respondents from South Africa and Mozambique revealed that hunters are arrested in both countries, and some are killed (Strong & Silva, 2020). The article suggests the analysis of local ideas on Illegal Wildlife Hunting (IWH) to find common ground between the social construction, which is about poverty and biological conservation. This will reveal the origin of the animosity between the local communities and the agencies that ban hunting. Conclusion In summation, this article has high