Anti-Hunters Vs Anti Hunters Essay

Anti-hunters are opposed to the explicit acts of hunters in Africa because of the environmental degradation it can lead to. What I want to be of focus, though, is that controversy over the act of hunting is not solely in line with hunting endangered African mammals. The results of all kinds of hunts and the drives hunters have to pursue these hunts differ because of the uniqueness of the goods the hunters seek in their adventures. What non-hunters and anti-hunters easily overlook is the anthropocentric values that the hunter seeks to fulfill and achieve, and how it expresses an interaction with nature.

I first want to describe the problems people have against African hunts that result in the hunters’ identity of a trophy hunter. Then, I will uncover the mysteries on why it is hunters conduct hunts, such as in Africa, on an ethical basis by applying an explanation for their dominionistic values. Finally, by understanding the diverse angles of a hunt that reveal access to the goods that drive the hunter, the reader should come to a conclusion that there is no capacity to depict different kinds of hunters. There is no proper concept of trophy hunting, sport hunting, subsistence hunting.

Hunters across the world are in range of an opportunity to hunt a trophy animal.

But if not, they can very easily travel to any destination that has what they are looking for, and they are willing to spend a plentiful amount of money to take up a hunt that they may never have an opportunity to do ever again.
Of course, the people who do this are not exactly informed on the issues which the region of Africa faces. In these regions hunting may be detrimental to the entire living ecosystem. Several organizations that are in support of animal rights, preservation, environmentalism and other related subjects are against what they define as trophy hunting. I will identify the major components that are used by anti-hunting organizations that support the argument as to why trophy hunts should end. While hunters give their reason to the media as to why they hunt in Africa, anti-hunters will refute the arguments with as accurate and factual of a response as they can possibly provide by reflecting on the latest research they can come across.
One argument anti-hunters identify is that hunters claim their fee paid to hunt these animals financially supports the communities they travel to. It is understood that maybe 2-3% of these fees are applied toward supporting these small, local communities. Yet the majority of fees are not applied toward conservation efforts, but rather fed through those who hold control, and will distribute it to other parties such as local governments and surrounding companies.
Another argument anti hunters refute is the claim that hunting larger, older members of the species maintains a physical balance of population, as if they are acting as nature would, but in a faster, more abrupt manner. Hunters claim that if larger animals are harvested, then there is room for the younger of the species to grow and thrive. Anti hunters are appalled by accusations such as these, for these arguments never stand up in validity. Larger mammals such as lions and elephants are highly dependent on leading figures within their groups. That means if the leading male of the small lion community is taken away permanently, then there is a loss of structure among the community. That leading role, therefore, needs to be fulfilled prematurely. There is a weaker sense of guidance and structure without it, putting the others in danger and making them more vulnerable to the elements.
Ultimately, their arguments are that these animals being hunted are sentient beings that should not be hunted because the populations as they stand now are considered unsustainable. Hundreds of animals are taken out of the populations each year, and creates instability. The populations could crash very quickly if this continues. Of course, there is plenty of controversy over the cases being made as to why trophy hunting should end in Africa.
The unfortunate case for the hunters is that their driving values for their passion of hunting will never justify why they want to hunt in places such as Africa. Regardless of the environmental impacts, a hunter’s explicit actions should not play a role in labeling the hunter. Now, for the hunter, the objective is not to solely kill animals. There is an “end to seek” in a hunt that is shared amongst all hunters.
Having “dominionistic values” (termed by Stephen R. Kellert) toward nature tend to properly fit the criteria of the average hunter. People have the sense that their reputation needs to be sustained when one is considered a hunter. When put into the position of challenging what wilderness has to offer, the hunter will grasp the “feeling of self-reliance” in order to survive. The philosophy of the hunter is to seek out the animal that displays such proportions that resemble the most quality genetics, which would reflect on their strength and ability to survive the elements and grow to their fullest potential. This is the driving force as to why they hunt. They binge on understanding how and why these animals have become what they are at the present moment. Being able to manipulate them in their home court, their turf, their playground, is what brings the excitement to the hunter.
Skilled hunters can overcome the elements of an alien environment and conquer those that have survived the longest, and are at their peek of living potential. And once the hunter has hunted, he/she can “appreciate the prey to a degree no other creature can”. On top of that, if those who know the hunter as someone who is not dependent on the animal for survival, then they interpret the act of the hunt as an act he/she can rehearse numerous times with success. Playing the role of the hunter brings challenge onto oneself, encountering “entertainment, urban escape, and forces one to be engaged with nature”. This would be a proper reflection of what it means to have dominionistic values toward nature in the sense of a sport hunter.
Knowing that the act of hunting results in the attainment of certain goods for the hunter, analysts of hunting tend to create labels on hunters to accommodate the assumed values each kind of hunter may possess. But, there are some issues with sustaining this distinction amongst hunters. When analysts identify sport hunters as those who hunt to recreate a predatory hunt, and label another as a subsistent hunter is a hunter who “kills animals in order to survive”, the depiction does not create a sufficient basis to identify hunters differently. Although being a subsistent hunter is the most morally permissible form of hunter, this does not truthfully identify the traditional indigenous hunters who are reliant on the wildlife for survival in this modern time. In fact, these hunters in this modern time can easily salvage what it is they want, and sell or barter what is left of the animal for other goods, or even commodities. The items that tend to be sold or bartered tend to be commodities for the consumer who exchanged what was left of the hunt. The idea of a subsistent hunter is simply too narrow to categorize when concerned over the actions of today’s hunters. If we are to broaden the scope of morality for the subsistent hunter, then hunting can be morally justified by goods other than to just survive, ultimately eliminating the idea of a subsistent hunter.
Now what about a sport hunter?

What characterizes a sport hunter in comparison to a subsistent hunter? Brian Luke writes about an analysis of what is called “The Sportsmen’s Code” that indicates the primary rules that sport hunters have to follow. The given rules are “Safety first, obey the law, give fair chase, harvest the game, aim for quick kills and retrieve the wounded”. It seems fair to say that any hunter can and will abide by these rules, and not just sport hunters. Although rules such as “aim for quick kills” may not be instructed by the Department of Natural Resources (which everyone MUST abide by), most hunters will follow this ethic to participate in the most successful

hunts.
To summarize what was stated earlier into simpler terms, sport hunters essentially strive for challenge, solitude and engagement with the elements of nature. When looking at the qualities a sport hunter considers achieved goods, who is to say a subsistent hunter does not share similar experiences with a sport hunter? It also seems very possible that with their kill, they will not utilize every bit of the kill. But they will most certainly make use of what they do not want by giving it away or trade it for other things, as subsistent hunters would. The issue at hand is that the characterization of a particular hunter is not shared between all hunters in the social scheme.
In fact, these qualities sport hunters are assumed to possess may very well be shared by more than just hunters. Amazingly, anyone who engages in the outdoors in any activity could identify themselves as hunters when understanding they, too, strive for challenge, solitude and engagement with the elements of nature.
Many of us feel conflicted when observing the explicit actions of hunters in Africa, and seeing why they are doing these hunts. What is simply overlooked is that, although what some hunters do results in environmental degradation, the hunters themselves cannot be labeled as certain kinds of hunters based on their explicit actions. There are intrinsic goods hunters strive for, and are universally shared amongst all hunters to the degree where it would be inappropriate to designate hunters in specific categories for actions that are only visually seen by non-hunters and anti-hunters. The goods hunters seek out must be considered, and must be understood as being universally applicable amongst all hunters, and even non-hunters. Hunters, in particular, just happen to kill animals.