More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of trophy hunting essay
Pros and cons of trophy hunting essay
Pros and cons of trophy hunting essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Trophy hunting is an outdated and ecologically destructive practice. Though often defended on the basis of socioecological value, the negative attributes of trophy hunting far outweigh any perceived gains. The basis of a full and comprehensive ban on trophy hunting can be established on three main criteria; ethics, conservation, and lack of factual evidence in favor of the socioecological merits of trophy hunting. Often, the counterargument of social benefit is overstated and under supported. By contrast, trophy hunting dramatically impacts the survival of many threatened and endangered species. In order to protect these animals, as well as the greater environment, for future generations, trophy hunting must be abolished. Ecological integrity …show more content…
Animals are not harvested out of necessity for food, pelts, or medicine. Trophy hunts capitalize on the exploitation and slaughter of wild animals for consumer means. Hunters are often wealthy foreign tourists who do not understand the ecological ramifications of their actions. Thus, trophy hunting is consumer at its finest, satisfying the entertainment needs of wealthy tourists with little regard for wildlife and environmental integrity. Lin summarizes, “most people who argue in favor of hunting are not arguing in favor of trophy hunting–the practice of killing an animal simply to show off its head and pelt. Trophy hunting is, in fact, abhorred by the majority of the public” (Lin). Banning trophy hunting is not an attack on traditional hunting for meat or population control. Rather, trophy hunting is an unethical practice that is not governed by mainstream conservation principles. Many hunters view trophy hunting as a poor and unfair representation of hunting. The negative stigma attached to this outdated practice can impact the manner in which all hunting is viewed. Thus, banning trophy hunting is a point that both conservationist and traditional hunters can unite …show more content…
Conservation must be valued above sport if wildlife populations are to succeed. Historical accounts have demonstrated the devastating impact of trophy hunting on wildlife populations. Elephants, rhinos, and Siberian tigers are just a few examples of species that have nearly been hunted to decimation because of trophy hunting. Compared to managed hunts that target members of the species based on seasonality, sex, and environmental impact of harvest, trophy hunting harms ecological integrity by removing the most fit members of a population. For example, deer hunting in most areas of the United States is regulated such that hunters follow seasonal trends and do not harvest members of the population that would result in overall damage to ecological integrity, such as the young and females depending on the time of the year. Trophy hunters are not regulated. Guides rely on creating an entertaining experience that is worth the money a wealthy tourist might pay. Thus, hunts are driven by tourist value over conservation ethics. Trophy hunters expect to find and shoot an animal on each venture to make the effort worth their financial contribution. This mentality leaves little room for ethical considerations. Flocken explains the dangers of trophy hunting in a recent CNN article: “From a biological perspective, the long-term survival of an imperiled species is extremely complicated; trophy hunting not only flies in the face
When a Minnesota dentist killed a prized African lion named "Cecil" he received an onslaught of criticism and reignited the debate concerning big game hunting. Is big game hunting wrong? Should big game hunting continue? Big game hunting has been a very controversial topic for some time and these types of questions are being asked daily. There are a lot of people for it and a lot of people against it. This issue causes a lot of extreme behaviors and ideas by both sides. Those who oppose it believe it to be morally wrong, unfair to the animals and damaging to the environment. Those individuals for it believe that it is the citizens' rights and a way to be involved in the environment. Hunting is the law and shall not be infringed upon. In defense of the hunters' I believe that there are five main issues of concern.
Hunting for sport is legal, and should remain that way. Many arguments against hunting for sport claim it is a “violent form of recreation” and “we have no right to take an animals life” for example, an opposing viewpoints article “Sport Hunting is an Unnecessary Form of Cruelty to Animals” says just that. HoweverI argue that we are part of this planet, as well as it’s ecosystem. We are (in ways) predators. An article on sport hunting, “Hunting for Sport” compares “hunters and the hunted” to a mountain lion and a deer. Is the lion at fault for hunting the deer? No. The mountain lion’s duty is to play the role as predator as well as keeping it’s prey’s population away from its ecosystems capacity. The ecosystem can no longer always support and control all animals populations.
Most sources spoke about the reason for trophy hunting is mostly towards conservation. In the article, Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests, by Nigel Leader-Williams and Jon M. Hutton, stated, “As a result, successful conservation is forced to rely heavily on the incentives generated by use and, for a whole raft of reasons often including a lack of accessibility, infrastructure and charismatic species, by extractive use in particular (Leader-Williams, 2000).” But what you don’t notice is that killing endangered species to “conserve” is not the only way to conserve. According to the article, Hunting – the murderous business, “Wildlife management, population control and wildlife conservation are euphemisms for killing – hunting, trapping and fishing for fun. A percentage of the wild animal population is specifically mandated to be killed. Hunters want us to believe that killing animals equals population control equals conservation, when in fact hunting causes overpopulation of deer, the hunters’ preferred victim species, destroys animal families, and leads to ecological disruption as well as skewed population dynamics.” This
The grizzly bear trophy hunt is an issue regarding the citizens of Canada who immorally hunt and kill grizzly bears for pride, thrill, and trophy. Many people question whether this is morally acceptable as hunters kill without a conscience. Grizzly bears are vital to Canada’s environment as they are essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. As keystone species, they regulate prey, disperse seeds of plants,and aerate soil to maintaining forest health. Due to the vulnerability and over-hunting of grizzly bears, Pacific Wild and many other non-profit organizations, are working to protect wildlife in British Columbia, especially the grizzly bear habitat.
Since the European colonization of eastern Africa, big game hunting, also know as "trophy hunting", has been a very controversial topic. During the early days of trophy hunting, dwindling numbers of some of the world’s most unique and prized wildlife was not a problem like it is today. When a trophy hunting dentist from Minnesota paid $55,000 to kill a prized African lion, he unintentionally reignited the heated debate concerning big game hunting. Wildlife conservationists and hunters debate the impact of hunting on the economy and the environment. Legal hunting can be controlled without government intervention, and the expensive sport of trophy hunting could generate a large sum of money to support conservation efforts.
Trophy hunting, or the activity in which people hunt wild animals, has also gained tremendous recognition over the years. Hunting animals usually has a very strong negative connotation; however, when hunting is done right, it brings numerous economic benefits.
Hunting demonstrates the ability to protect and provide mainly referred to males providing their families with meat from the animals and protecting their land. (“Modern Hunters Are Stewards of Wildlife and the Environment.”) The economy today is very unsustainable and hunting is the key to feeding the hungry. (“Modern Hunters Are Stewards of Wildlife and the Environment.”) There are many food banks today that will accept the meat provided by animals and feed hungry organizations that cannot buy food themselves. What most people don’t know is most of the money used by hunters that go towards hunting licenses, hunting tags, and hunting lotteries to hunt in particular spots go to wildlife research and habitat protections in that hunters home state. With approximately 12.5 million hunters in the World today a lot more money gets sent to these organizations than people would ever think. Overall, hunting is a positive force because it provides an economic motive for maintaining wildlife habitats. This keeps animals in their own habitats and away from people and their homes as much as possible. Some see this sport very cruel and un-humane but overall it is helping this World out way more than people think. If we didn’t have people who hunt or knew how to hunt we would be very reliant on other foods. Such as farming fruits and vegetables, which could go extinct if something devastating happens. We wouldn’t have the protein and vitamins needed in the meat we eat. Hunting is very necessary, and everyone should know how to hunt or learn soon. It’s helpful now, and will be very helpful in the future if there is a reason we can’t rely on cattle for meat anymore. We will have to figure out other ways to get meat, and without hunting it is very unlikely that
Newsela research states about Africa that “the big cats there are possibly the most endangered lions on the planet”. Trophy hunting should not be allowed.Trophy hunting can be harmful to animals that are becoming endangered. Animals should be protected instead of hurt or harmed. Also trophy hunting can be a cruel form of hunting. Hunting destroy animal families and habitats, and leaves terrified and dependent baby animals behind to starve to death.
This would mean that even if trophy hunting did help local economies as supporters of trophy hunting suggest it does not do so in a proportionate way. In agreement with Flocken is Dr. Peter Katt, who has studied trophy hunting in Africa. Kat proclaims that the revenue generated from hunting actual pales in comparison to the amount of revenue made from tourist who seek to simply see the wildlife. This is contrary to many supporters’ claims of trophy hunting who believe the “$200 million” trophy industry is actually economically beneficially to countries. Kat cites a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)study of African countries and trophy hunting. According to the study, “On average in the 11 countries [that allow trophy hunting], 14.9% of the land area has been set aside for hunting, and the average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate poverty and hunger”
Hunting affects a lot of people’s lives, whether it is food, entertainment, money or wrecks. Hunting animals can feed the hungry, as well as, lessen car accidents. On the other hand, hunting can be pleasing for the economy. In my opinion, there are tremendous benefits about hunting.
Hunting is killing off the world’s animal population. Animals like giraffes, Tasmanian devils, and rhinos are endangered due to hunters killing them for their pleasure. Animals live in the wild to be with their families and thrive and grow in their environment. Animals are amazing creatures and are actually really cool and interesting. We shouldn’t be hunting them, we should actually be trying to learn more about them.
People frequently argue that hunting is detrimental to hunt animals for food, hunting is primarily as a recreational activity, and strict laws govern which species of animals can be hunted as well as when those animals can be taken. Hunting is one of the oldest practices known to humankind and was necessity of life. Suffering our species argue that hunting is dedicate balance of nature, results in numerous accidents each year, and is inhumane to animals. I consider people who commit terrorism in the name of animal protection to be among the greatest threats to future gains for nonhumans. However, the activity is not only unsafe but it is also inhumane to animals.
My thoughts against hunting are that it is cruel and unnecessary. I do not feel that it is fair to the animals that they have done no harm to us but they get killed for the money or entertainment we get out of it.
Since their ivory is so very valuable through the black market, it makes them a prime target for not only poachers, but people trying to raise money to support a household in today's third world countries. But what statistics are showing is that african countries who allow regulated hunting have not only a major increase in animal population but also better funds to help support the villages in those third world countries. The reason for better animal population is due to what is called “trophy hunting”. When a person participates in regulated hunting, they are assigned a guide not only to ensure the hunters safety but to help them determine the oldest animal in the herd. sometimes animals can suffer a to a great extent just by aging. A clear example of this are Elephants, which are known to become so old their legs cannot support their weight, and after hours of severe agonizing pain the elephant suffocates under its own weight. This is a clear argument for pro hunting, adding to numerous arguments which explain hunting as a legitimate humane conservation effort. In addition, the economic boost comes from the funding due to regulated hunting, which helps pays for school education for kids,which not only helps fund anti poaching campaigns to reduce the number of animals lost to poaching but also helps pays for school education for local
Hunting has been around for many centuries and is one of the oldest practices known to mankind. Hunting is often called a ‘sport’ to disguise a needless, and cruel killing as a socially acceptable activity. Paul Rodriquez once said “Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides know they are in the game.” (“a quote by”). Hunting simply deprives animals of their right to live, and their deaths serve no justifiable purpose. Hunting should be illegal because it is murder, it disrupts the natural ecosystem, and animals have emotions.