Tropical conservation has seen a convergence between conservation projects and rural development, with both approaches promoting participation of local people in sustainable resource use. But there is a discord between rural development and sustainable use of wildlife. Implementing more sustainable use of wildlife usually means decreased economic benefits for rural people, especially over the short term. In contrast, rural-development projects are often mandated to generate income for rural people over the short term. We examined this dilemma through an integrated economic and harvest analysis of the costs associated with converting unsustainable hunting to more sustainable hunting in the Peruvian Amazon. Our analysis suggests that a change in hunting practice would have significant economic costs for rural people and would result in a 36% decrease in the economic benefits they derive from wildlife hunting. In contrast, converting unsustainable hunting to more sustainable hunting would have little effect on meat markets in the urban center of Iquitos, Peru, with markets losing only 3.6% of their economic value. There would be no economic costs for the international pelt trade. If rural-development projects absorb the short-term economic costs, they can help people convert unsustainable wildlife use to more sustainable use and assist rural people in realizing the long-term benefits of more sustainable hunting. But many rural-development projects would need to change their mandate for short-term income generation to incorporate the realities of sustainability.