Save the Animals
How boring would the world be without wildlife? Why should we have to kill endangered animals to help save them? One must be aware of how some magnificent big and small animals are coming close to extinction. The cause to this tragedy is due to trophy hunting, meaning that hunters only kill for the head or certain body parts of the animal. There are many reason to why it may be acceptable to have trophy hunting, but also how it can damage the wildlife making them face extinction at an alarming rate.
One reason why trophy hunting is acceptable is because it helps certain wildlife conservations keep certain animals from becoming over populated. The act of trophy hunting helps by keeping the number of animals in a certain
As for us humans, all we revolve around is money that only last for a few seconds, months, or years. Although wildlife may not be able to speak, we as people must help them so they aren’t on the verge of extinction. That being said, trophy hunting must stop because whether it is a deer, cat, or rhino there is one less of them in the wild. We are intervening for nature to not take its course and let the animals live their expected life span in the wild. By killing such great mammals we are destroying their herd’s population and the future they hold. As stated in the “Protect Bears from Hunting” a trophy hunt would do nothing to prevent conflicts (MacFall). The conflict is that we must stop the killing of animals that are endangered and let nature have its way with minimal human interaction. Another view is that trophy hunting not only target big game animals, but the animals that are big game such as the lion, depend on other game animals for food such as the Antelope. While trophy hunters effect this species, they not only hurt the deer population, but the predators that follow their migration to stay alive and defend their territory. By taking out some of these animals it makes the lions more likely to interfere with cattle and getting close to town as the deer population begin to dwindle down. A better view of how trophy hunter effect the wildlife is that they hunt animals to only keep the head of the “trophy” and leave the rest to spoil. This is a major problem because the meat is left to spoil and it cannot serve any use to the people that survive off the land. While the meat is left to waste not one person can benefit from the meat that could have helped fed families nearby. After the meat spoils it may be left for predators to eat, but with this being said exposed meat can accumulate bacterial growth imposing an own threat to
The money can go to conservation clubs. There are even multiple clubs who rely completely on funds from hunts. It could also help the local economy because of tourism and money from the hunts. However, “only 3 percent of the money spent by trophy hunters winds up in the hands of local people” ("Studies Show There Are Many Sides in the African Lion-hunting Debate”) If only three percent of the money goes back to the community, then it is not making a large impact on the community. Some also claim that big game hunting draws in money from tourism by the hunters. However, “It made up only 1.2 percent of all tourism money in South Africa and 2.3 percent in Tanzania.” ("Studies Show There Are Many Sides in the African Lion-hunting Debate”) People are claiming that hunters are dragging in money for tourism, but most of the tourism income does not come from hunters. Instead, it comes from people on safaris who truly cherish these animals and do not want to see them go
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
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.
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.
Despite there being numerous argumentative points for both the hunter and the environmentalist there is no definite answer as to whether hunting should be permitted or not. Each individual has their own perspective on hunting and what is acceptable and what is intolerable. Hunting may be viewed as acceptable for survival purposes only by some and others may approve sport hunting as well. Some environmentalist would like to see all forms of hunting and trapping completely banned including pig and dairy farms. Hunting can be seen as a way to entertain and relax in one’s eyes while it can also be seen as the cruelest form of animal cruelty and murder from another individual’s perspective. Hunting is completely subjective to the views and morals of the person trying to decide what is right and what is wrong.
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.
Hunting centuries ago was a cruel way of survival for humans but now it's no more than a violent form of recreation. Hunters should only hunt if they need it for sustenance which most
Flocken endorses that “...hunters are not like natural predators.They target the largest specimens; with the biggest tusks, manes, antlers, or horns.” In Defense of Animals International (IDA) argues that hunters concentrate on“game” populations and ignore “non-game” species that may lead to overpopulation and unequal ecosystems. Therefore, it affects their ecosystem, and the animals’ families. Overall, the evidence proves trophy hunting hurts the environment, specifically conservation. Therefore, the hunters’ idea that trophy hunting actually helps conservation by killing some predators to maintain balance, is merely
People who take part in the trophy hunt consider killing a grizzly bear as a challenge. It has diverged from the original purpose and concept of hunting. Usually, a hunter takes full advantage of his/her preys. For example, they eat up their preys’ meat not waste it, as suggested in the beginning. However, trophy hunters do nothing more than taking away the head, paws and skins of the grizzly bear. (responsibletravel) Moreover, killing grizzly bear with guns is not really a challenge. People pay money to join the trophy hunt to get a rifle and a guide so they can find a pre-prepared spot to pull the trigger. Most grizzly bear are killed without knowing what is going on. Sometimes they are killed when seeking salmon in the rivers. Sometimes they are killed after walking outside the caves where they just have their hibernation. Those trophy hunters were literally enjoying the pleasure of killing, and they concealed it by calling it a challenge, which is cruel, unethical and
For thousands of years scientist have been performing vivisections on animals to find information on new chemicals, drugs, and vaccines. Vivisection is when scientist perform dissections among living animals mostly for the purpose of educating and retrieving information. Experimenting on animals has become the tool that has helped us comprehend the body functions of an animal and how a disease transforms the bodily functions, but over the years it’s caused animal rights activists to question the usefulness and the sincerity of using animals for this purpose. Although animal research has been helpful in the past, it is morally wrong in the sense that experimenting on animals is not the only way to collect information. There are other alternatives
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)
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.
Imagine a world where there are no animals anywhere. There are still the ordinary cows, pigs, cats, dogs, but there is not a single tiger or rhinoceros. People all around the world have been killing animals for thousands of years, and they need to stop and obey the laws. Make your voice heard for the animals; they can’t speak for themselves so we need to do it for them. Other reasons why animals are getting put on the endangered species list and or going extinct: habitat intrusion, pet trade, climate change, and disease.
If this trend continues, by the year 2055, the number of species which are hunted could be increased. reduced by as much as 81 percent. (Satchell 31) Not only does hunting reduce the number of animals, it can also be unnecessarily cruel to the creatures. When deer are bowhunted, they often are. not instantly killed by the snare.