The Pros And Cons Of Trophy Hunting

Good Essays
Each of these viewpoints have positives and negatives, some rely on human interests while others are more ethically centered. When dealing with trophy hunting they all have some kind of part to play, but ultimately the sport still does not seem to be completely ethical. Despite these problems, trophy hunting has a lot of potential and could still be beneficial to the environment. Stronger laws and regulations could be established to ensure trophy hunting is really making a positive difference. Restricting trophy hunting only to certain species is another option. If neither of these two solutions works, there is always the option of stopping trophy hunting all together. The most successful hunting areas are those in first world countries. …show more content…
The basic justification behind trophy hunting is that it raises funds for conservation. However, in relationships between people and nature we just are not very good at predicting the outcomes of our actions . Trophy hunting rare and endangered species does not guarantee the safety of that species. While it is only a couple animals, it still results in decreasing the population and gene pool of that species. If trophy hunting only occurred on invasive or overpopulated animals, there would be no need to worry about the overall affects on the population as much. Anthropocentrists would still make money, biocentrists can justify this type of trophy hunting because it goes towards protecting the environment from invasive species, and ecocentrists would accept it because it keeps overpopulated and invasive species from further degrading the environment. The issues with this method are similar to the issues with the previous method. The highest paying animals hunted are those with a threatened or endangered status. Taking these animals off the market would produce less income for conservation and therefore less money to be used to help restore the endangered and threatened species. Local villages that advertised trophy hunting would have less interest in restoring the environment and stopping poaching without the money they make off of trophy hunting. Ethically, this is probably one of the …show more content…
Westerners are one the biggest clients for trophy hunting so I examined the issue from three different ethical viewpoints of western tradition. Each ethical idea has some way it can look at trophy hunting from an ethically acceptable position. From the solutions listed, the one most ethically acceptable for all three groups would be to trophy hunt only invasive or overpopulated species. Income for conservation can still be made, while the issues with killing animals can be justified as a form of protection for the environment. This solution could become even more acceptable if meat and unused parts of the animals killed were donated to those who need it. Trophy hunting has its flaws, but it also has the potential to be a beneficial part of conservation and environmental

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    But when you look at the data we see gtaht our perception of trophy hunting as a monstrous activity could actually be harmful towards animal populations. When we accept that it is not the main cause of animal death and can actually bring economic growth to regions that desperately need it we can start to do something about it. We should be angry that African nations are not restricting exports of horn and tusk gained though poaching. The people pay to kill animals will be used to help save more animals. That is a hard fact to accept, another is the fact that a full ban on trophy hunting would actually be devastating for animals and for locals.…

    • 1004 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It 's economic and environmental benefits greatly outweigh it 's negative aspects- the rare instances of friendly fire or animal suffering- and we should not judge hunting as a destructive, unnecessary sport because of it 's unfortunate past consequences. Hunting is no longer endangering the lives of thousands of species as it was fifty or hundreds of years ago, modern hunting does not take away more than it should away from the environment and instead now provides a much needed balance in order to continue conservation efforts and expand the natural diversity of our country. Hunting is necessary because as we can see from the example of deer, nature gives us too much for a modernizing and expanding world to handle, and the minor drawbacks currently associated with hunting are no where near as equal to the large benefits it provides America 's people, animals, and…

    • 955 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A paradox refers to a statement, proposition, or situation that seems to be absurd or contradictory, but in fact is or may be true. One of the more famous paradoxes when it comes to wildlife conservation is the Trophy Hunter’s Paradox. Hunting wildlife, especially endangered animals, seems antithetical to conservation. And yet, conservation hunting seems to be the next “big thing” in conservation. Why is conservation hunting so important to the climate of conservation today?…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What I have concluded is that we should hunt because of conservation, fresh food, and family traditions. These all play a vital role in why we should hunt. Many of the opposing sides argument was that hunting is inhumane, not safe, and why we should not eat meat. I feel like these organizations have their own opinions and claims, but never want to pull out facts when talking about the subject. When looking at the benefits of hunting, they outweigh the negatives often used in propaganda against hunters and hunting.…

    • 1843 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The same applies for all the other methods. Therefore, despite the futile efforts by mammalogists to justify their inhuman nature depicted in the killing of animals, the question still remains to be answered regarding the killing of animals. Other researchers have articulated that killing of animals, especially wild animals, could be beneficial. This is because the act helps in reducing the damages on the environment that is caused by these animals, increase in wildlife value, and increased willingness for landowners to tolerate damages by wild animals and removing animals from the general populations before they die (Conover, 529). However, these advantages are hard to quantify or rather measure especially when comparing the act with the suggested benefit.…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Many people say that hunting is bad because hunters kill off wild animals and cause them to go extinct, but that is not necessarily true. Hunters actually keep the population of wild animals at a steady pace. If people did not hunt, it could cause over population. This would then lead to fewer resources for…

    • 845 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Importance Of Hunting

    • 1317 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Importance of Hunting The majority of our society does not understand the importance of the act of hunting. Hunting keeps the wildlife population at equilibrium between their natural lifestyle and our civilization to aid agricultural farmers. The problem is those who oppose hunting do not think it is ethical, and those who hunt more for fun rather than putting food on the table for their families. The truth of the matter is that hunting is a major part of protecting wildlife from overpopulation, disease, and overgrazing farm land. Though that’s not all, a species could starve to death if the population is not at a steady level.…

    • 1317 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In order to be a Speciest, one must believe and practice Speciesism, which is favoring one’s own species over a different animal species. Some acts of Speciesism have a greater impact than others, yet Singer believes that almost everybody is guilty of being a Speciest. There is a significant amount of evidence to prove Singer’s point. First, the main argument that humans are Speciests is that we continue using animals for food, even though it is not a necessity for survival. In fact, it is proven that meat is not a vital step for keeping good health (Singer para.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The dangers are low, people could use them for commercial purposes, they could be owned if animal welfare is taken care of, and they should be banned because of a few idiotic people. If exotic animals are banned, then humans and children should be banned as would be the only way to absolutely stop murder and many other incidents. This is very idiotic for humans to be banned due to a few incidents and murder, but it also very foolish for people to be banned from owning exotic animals due to incidents and deaths. So why do people find it ok that exotics should be banned? Although the price could be a bit pricey or high in worth, depending on who you are, it is your choice on whether or not you waste the money and you should obviously do a background check or research to see if it would be the smartest thing or not.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We are spending a liberal amount of money preserving species that are not equipped to survive themselves. According to Ford, we don 't depend on endangered species, so why is it a big deal if they go extinct? In many ways this sounds correct, it seems insane that the death of an endangered species could affect humans directly. Therefore, the reason we are protecting these species is because humans only care about how cute the…

    • 1647 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays