Jimmy Kimmel, the man with one of the best late night shows in the US, cried about the death of Cecil the Lion. "First of all, stop saying you took the animal! You take aspirin! You killed the lion! You didn't take it!" Kimmel said. Should animal hunting be allowed? Should've Palmer been charged? Will Cecil's story stop hunting in Africa? Should animal hunting be allowed? No, of course not. People go lion hunting all the time. With people always hunting lions. It may hurt the populations of animals and other animals who are eaten by lions. And by hurt I mean it would double in sizes. It would double if we keep lion hunting. And people won't stop. Especially because Palmer got away with killing Cecil, so other people think they will get
In July of 2015, national treasure of Zimbabwe, Cecil the Lion was maliciously killed by dentist Walter Palmer. The hunt caused an uproar from many animal activists. The media covered the hunt and the aftermath for many weeks. This heartless act has many questioning why big game hunting is legal. Multiple African countries allow big game hunting, but it is harming the ecosystem. Many innocent, endangered animals are killed. Big game hunting should be banned because it lowers populations, causes further problems, and animal populations are already dropping.
For example, a very recent event of the illegal killing of the lion, Cecil, gained colossal attention throughout social media and the news. However, Cecil’s death also brings up the question of whether trophy hunting is safe after all. Walter Palmer, the killer of Cecil, had purchased a hunting permit for 55,000 dollars; yet, he is put in trial for hunting a lion. Cecil was a protected animal and a local favorite. Palmer claims, however, that he had no knowledge of that prior to his hunt and blames the guides for not notifying him about Cecil (independent.co.uk). The “Cecil case” can lead to a very long, heated discussion, but the main takeaway from this is that trophy hunting can never be 100 percent safe. Although, most trophy hunters believe that they are helping with conservation, they might be doing more harm than good. For
Some researchers of the BC Raincoast Conservation Foundation have been devoted to fighting the hunt for over a decade now. Although they do signify that emotion is a part of their reason to ban hunting bears, they like to focus on the ecological and ethical aspect of the hunt. There is a big controversy over the fact that if there is sustainable number of bears in the environment and people are allowed to kill them, then why is the surplus of humans allowed to grow. Should humans be also murdered like bears?
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 against it and a lot of people against it.
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.
Some may say that the main purpose of this activity is to have fun with family or friends, others affirm that it helps to keep a balance between species or even that it helps to keep a good economy but what about the animals? Did any of them deserve to die so that humans are no longer bored? Were they a hazard to human life? I don’t think so. So in this essay I’m going to present why Animal trophy hunting should be prohibited and removed from our lives.
On July 1, 2015 Cecil the lion was shot and killed by Walter Palmer, an experienced big game trophy hunter from Bloomington, Minnesota. Cecil, a 13 year old male lion who resided within the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, was a local favorite and popular tourist attraction. Two local inhabitants guided and assisted Palmer in luring Cecil outside of the reserve’s boundaries and remained with Palmer as he hunted Cecil. As news of Cecil’s death spread, the enraged public began protesting and violently threatening Palmer. The illegal poaching of Cecil created a global outcry against trophy hunting and opened up a platform for debate over the issue of hunting in both illegal and legal settings. Many African countries utilize trophy hunting as
A social outrage has broken recently amid the scandal of Cecil the Lion’s death. Cecil was illegally hunted and killed by the American dentist Walter Palmer. Since then, it has caused the world to change their minds on the effects of trophy hunting. Succeeding the death of the renowned lion, a recent poll in America displays that on a three to one margin, the respondents said they would rather be tourists in a country that prohibits trophy hunting, instead of one that does not. The debate is ascending as more hunters proudly present their ‘trophy’ on social media. Many nature conservatives and animal protection agencies are raising awareness because of the fact that Cecil died in a meaningless and violent manner.The problem is not only in America, but around the globe. Trophy hunting should be illegal in the world because it is merely killing animals without a meaningful purpose, and it produces harmful effects to the environment.
I think that fox hunting should not be banned as foxes kill such a variety and quantity of animals that, if their numbers were not kept down, other species would start to decline.
Hunting is a passion for millions of Americans across the United States and without it who knows what the current deer population would be. With the white tailed deer having few predators and a large habitat to thrive in it is important to keep the tradition of hunting going. Besides, the real problem Anti-hunters should be focusing on is the growth of cities and communities because they are what truly hurts the deer population. As long as deer hunting safety remains under control and the deer population stays in tacked, there should be no reason to end future hunts for Americans. To conclude, it is true that many people don’t believe in the ethics of hunting and that is alright, because regardless of how they feel hunting is here to stay for many years to
Dr. Walter Palmer must be held accountable for killing Cecil the lion illegally. Dr. Walter Palmer
Humans have been hunting practically since the beginning of time. Take a moment to look back at our country’s founding fathers and Native Americans. People in that era hunted as a means of survival. We all possess the skills of stalking prey. It’s in our blood. Hunting is automatically instilled in us being at the top of the food chain. Although looking back into history, one can also find that some hunting has diminished animal populations practically to the verge of extinction. However these facts have not gone unnoticed. If hunting is well regulated, whether it be for sport or recreational involvement, and there are no major affects to the species, if anything it may help bring back species from the edge of extinction. “Several wildlife managers view recreational hunting as the principal basis for protection of wildlife.”(Lebel)
An animal that attacks a human being should not be abolished. In any type of case in law, you always have to have justification and be fair, why can’t animals have it? Most animals attack when we attack them, it might have even been an accident.
The topic of hunting has always been filled with controversy, excitement and trepidation for the environment. Both sides have varies ideas as to what is wrong and right. I realize that many people do not understand why people have to hunt or why people do hunt. One of the questions that kept coming to mind is why so many people are against hunting when their ancestors hunted and without hunting many of them would not be alive today. This question is relevant because many people are becoming to be worried that animals are in pain when being hunted and that it is unfair for people to hunt selfless animals with modern weaponry, and with many people going against the right to own guns.
Other primate species have similar characteristics that include emotions dealing with death, pain, and the consumption of food by way of hunting. Regan supports the fundamental idea underlying his argument that animals are not our resources but rather are experiencing subjects of a life, the same as humans. These life experiences aid in the forming of moral beliefs. I do think Regan’s belief is extreme in the reference to completely eliminate commercial animal agriculture. In my opinion, animal agriculture should be minimized to operate locally versus nationally or globally. Local operation can ensure that there is not an overabundance and misuse of animals. Total elimination is not rational to me because the consumption of meat is in the diet of not only humans but other animal species as well. If we cut hunting out of our diet, should animals cut out hunting their specific choice of preys as well? Although we share similar value in hunting, though the way we hunt is different. In addition, there should be requirements and restrictions on human treatment and living space for