The Harmony Between Hunting and Conservation In 2014, professional hunter Corey Knowlton, placed a bid of $350,000 for the chance to go on a hunting trip in Namibia. On this trip Knowlton had the chance to hunt and kill the black rhino, an extremely endangered species. This hunt and the ideas that have been used to justify it have started a heated debate on the subject. Animal conservationists, who support the ethical side of the argument, don’t understand the desire to kill a beautiful animal for sport. They believe that to sell the rights to the unnatural slaughter of an innocent animal for a trophy sends the wrong message. It seems contradictory and unethical especially in the name of conservation. Conservation by definition is the act …show more content…
Hunting and poaching is mainly responsible for the initial decrease in the population of black rhinos specifically. Currently, there are approximately 5,000 black rhinos left in the wild today, and 2,000 of them live in Namibia (Lavandera, 2015). With such a small population size black rhinos and rhinos in general are on the brink of extinction. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic theory simply pushes the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land (Leopold, 1948). He believes in giving animals value as that is the only way people can be ethical towards it (Leopold, 1948). Conservationists use this theory to support their argument that it is unethical to bring about death and suffering to an animal for the good of the species in the long run. Richard Leaky, head of the Kenya Wildlife Service, states that conservation hunting sends a negative message that it’s okay to hunt these animals and kill endangered species and decreases their value (Melvin, 2015). However, they’re there are so many other ways we can increase conservation efforts, the best way being, exposure to the wonders of wildlife and nature starting at a young age (Melvin, 2015). This would increase the animals value and make more people understand and practice the ideas behind the land ethic theory. Not to mention classic conservationists question the contradictory notion that killing an animal this way is an effort to save the animal from
Hunting is a common controversial issue among people. Determining when killing an animal is necessary and ethical has mixed viewpoints. One type of hunting that generally creates feelings of animosity among people is trophy hunting. There are very few ethical theories and ideas that support trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is a form of hunting in which the hunter kills an animal with the main goal of taking a part or parts of that animal for a trophy. The majority of trophy hunting occurs in Africa, with big game as the most popular trophies, but trophy hunting also applies to non-exotic species as well. In this paper, I will start with introducing a recent incident involving the killing of a popular African lion, then outlining the main ethical issues with trophy hunting. Next I will analyze the trophy hunting from an anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric viewpoint, and finally I will propose a few solutions that would make trophy hunting a more ethical activity. Trophy hunting has been said to provide many benefits to conservation and preservation of species but is ethically lacking; with some stronger laws and regulations trophy hunting has the potential to be both ethically acceptable and beneficial to the environment.
The article, “Eat the invaders: Conservation hunters” describes how many environments in both the U.S and the world need more people to eat certain invasive species such as lionfish. To begin with, the text says, “Lionfish can reduce native species populations by 90% within weeks of arrival,...” The U.S has been experiencing major problems from lionfish such as the reduction of many important fish such as the ones that eat algae that damages corals. Also, the author states, “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has led a campaign to put lionfish on menus, encouraging fishermen and traders to participate.” If more people begin eating lionfish and other edible invasive species, then the population can become controlled.
Because of the poaching of game like the elephant, the number of species will start to diminish. What hunters brought to the villages of Botswana was the money and the meat from the animals to feed the many people that go hungry everyday. Hunters that would take animals such as an elephant wouldn’t take any of the meat for themselves but rather they give all of the meat to the villages in the area. However, when poaching starts to take over, there will be zero meat or money that will be put back into the community. Poachers that kill elephants are only after one thing and that is the ivory from the elephant tusks. After taking the tusks, the elephant is left to rot. Another animal that is sought after by poachers in Botswana is the rhino. The rhino is poached for their horns, which are supposedly an aphrodisiac in China so the demand is high. Because of these effects, groups like SCI are so important to different places around the world. The money brought in by the hunters is used to hire conservation officers to protect the rhinos and elephants and to buy land that will be put into game preserves so the numbers of these species will increase because there aren’t any pressures from hunting or
Since the European colonization of eastern Africa, trophy hunting has been a highly debatable 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. Wildlife conservationists and hunters continue to debate the merits of legalized hunting on the economy and on the environment. However, not all hunters value the economic benefits and have passion for the outdoors. In fact, some of these hunters are conservationists themselves, who believe that it will allow for better conservation efforts in the long run. In another perspective, trophy hunters tend to downplay the reality of the killing part. To kill is to put to death, extinguish, nullify, cancel, or destroy. There is a fine line between conservation, and senseless killing of animals involved in trophy hunting.
disagreed upon for various reasons, the effects of hunting have been and will continue to
But most of the animals that are being killed are the rare one or the ones that are in danger of bing extinct. For example the elephants are being killed for their teeth, that some people use trophies or they use it make other things like jewelries furnitures, pianos and other things that people use to as entertainment (Ivory, 1). According to article called Black Ivory; poaching, “More than 200 elephants were killed in a single state of Cameroon in the first six weeks of 2012.” The number of elephants being killed are increasing, as well as the number of rhinos. The rhinos, they are being killed by the hundreds. According to an article by Humane Society “more than 1,004 rhinos were killed in South Africa alone and this year’s tally as of October 24th was 899 – that’s three rhinos poached each day. At this rate, the 2014 rhino poaching figure for South Africa will be 1,100, exceeding last year’s record-setting poaching level.” (Poachers and Trophy Hunters Conspiring to Hurt Endangered Rhinos). These are just some example of animals that are being poached, many other are killed and mistreated like lemurs, deers, tigers, lions,
Big-game hunting is ethical if executed properly. With the recent death of Cecil the lion, renowned and “beloved” tenant of a local animal reserve in Zimbabwe, a massive uproar of “anti-hunting” protests have risen to the surface. While these oppositions are with good intentions they also squash the opinions and experiences of native Zimbabweans who view creatures like Cecil as objects of terror. While it is true that trophy hunting is indeed unethical, as it is harmful to the ecosystem, the native people of areas where hunters can pay to slay large game think otherwise. As the individuals most greatly impacted by changes in the ecosystem, their voices deserve to be heard over those of sympathetic Americans. In the article “In Zimbabwe, We
Hunting has been around for a very long time, as time progresses, it becomes more modern. The main two weapons for hunting are guns and bows. The debate between what is better for hunting has been around forever. There is many advantages and disadvantages for both weapons but the decision on what to use comes down to one thing: what will make the hunter the most successful. There are many different factors to think about when coming down to a conclusion. James Fackrell from Ezinearticles states, “Most rifle hunters say that bow hunters should rifle hunt while bow hunters say that rifle hunters should pick a bow. In the end do what makes you most happy and most comfortable” (para. 1). Making the decision can be hard and involve many details to think about, but in the the end, being comfortable with what you’re using is also an important decision. The best choice to go with is what weapon will be most comfortable and relative as well as ensuring a successful hunt. Hunting with a gun and bow are very different, their effective distance, noise made, and fairness to the animals are all very different.
Hunting is the world’s oldest and most productive means of food, yet it has begun to take a turn from its originality. Most “hunters” do hunt for food, but the select few that specifically hunt for the sport and nothing else have begun to sway organizations to the concept of “Anti-hunting.” These institutions have concluded some very critical, and factual, evidence in their opposing arguments on the matter, but in some ways the argumentation presents weakness that has been overlooked; these flaws are menial, but need to be surfaced. These little defects within the following arguments justify the hunter’s right to hunt and harvest game, and Anti- Hunting organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have stated multiple facts about the way hunting has turned against its inventiveness such as: sport hunting as an unnecessary form of cruelty, fair chase of animals, and hunters as conservatives.
There are many controversies out there. Abortion, Gay marriage, global warming. There is one controversy that barely ever comes to light except for a few incidents: Hunting. Nearly 6% of the United States population hunts recreationally. People hunt deer, birds, and bears and many more animals all over the country. Many people agree with hunting for sport and many people don’t. That is why it is important to shed light on both sides of the argument.
What goes through the minds of people when they think about trophy hunting? Hunting is the act of pursuing and killing live animals for food, recreation, or trade. Early human civilizations relied on hunting for subsistence. As humans and civilizations evolved, so did hunting. Hunting became a sport rather than a necessity. People who are for hunting claim that it helps control wildlife populations, whereas people against it believe that trophy hunting will lead to the extinction of certain animals. This paper will examine viewpoint one, two, and my viewpoint on trophy hunting being banned or not.
In his article, “Hunting Makes Significant Contributions to Wildlife Protections”, Hal Herring claims that hunters are a strong part of conservation. He states that even though hunters and conservationists don’t see eye-to-eye on many things, they are tied to
In many families, hunting is a tradition carried on from generation to generation and is a respected sport. However, there are those who do not respect the sport or the animals and have no issues harvesting the animals by any means necessary. Poachers are people that hunt during a non-hunting season or use tools to lure animals such as deer and bear to areas easier for them to get a shot. Essentially, poaching amounts to the theft of public's wildlife. (Wilkes-Barre, 2008) Poaching occurs all over the world and is not limited to a certain species. In Africa, elephants are the target of poachers for their tusks. In the 1970's and the 1980's the population of the elephants in Africa reduced due to poaching from 1.3 million to 600,00 0 in less than a decade. This illegal hunting selectively removed older animals with larger tusks and the results of this are being seen. Poaching not only affects the elephant population but the behavior of the elephants as well. (Archie & Chiyo, 2012) In all reality hunters have absolutely no reason or right to bend the rules, much less steal.
Humans have been hunting on this planet for over two million years. Our ancestors used complex hunting techniques to ambush and kill antelopes, gazelles, and other large animals dated back to times before Christ. People all around the world still carry on the tradition, but the view on hunting is not the same as it was back then. The world is so industrialized, and people think hunting is cruel and useless because you can buy meat at grocery stores. But in reality, it is the reason the wildlife they see are not extinct. Harvesting game not only benefits the hunter with the meat, but also the land, the wildlife, and controls the game population; therefore, without it wildlife would starve, and land would not be managed.
Although poaching is an illegal act, it is still a growing problem in the world because it is making the extinction of various animals more probable. Not only it cruel, but it affects the environment and ecosystem where these animals reside. Although various people, usually trophy hunters or those uninformed, argue that it isn’t that big of a problem, there are realities to it that won’t be stopped unless we act upon it and bring awareness of the situation.