.jpg)
You may have heard of Cecil the lion that was killed in an African Game Reserve. Well there are more people out there who do this than you may think...and a lot of the animals come from somewhere you may not have ever expected.
Read this article and answer the following questions:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160206-American-trophy-hunting-wildlife-conservation/
1) What is the issue?
2) How do you feel about this?
3) What does big game hunting do for Canada?
4) Which of the four PEES does this fall into? Can it be more than one? Which ones?
I feel that when it comes to hunting you should hunt for food not for the sport, thrill or the trophy. The other problem with hunting for sport is there are animals that are endangered because of over hunting/ poaching for example the White rhinoceros.
ReplyDeleteThis one I want marked...The issue is that we are killing too many of some of the world’s vulnerable and endangered species. The controversy is that the sport hunters believe what they are doing is boosting local economies and, for high-paying hunters, provides incentives for the preservation of land and wildlife. While the animal welfare advocates and scientists believe that sport hunting puts pressure on vulnerable populations, as well as disrupts social networks. It also does not pump up local economies as much as hunters believe. Another issue in this is that destroying wildlife for pleasure is unethical. This issue falls under all politics, economy, environment, and social. Some are more obvious than others. Environment is obvious because it is killing our wildlife. Economy is another because it affects the economy of both where the wildlife is sold, and where they are killed. The social aspect of this issue is that it is very controversial with powerful opinions on both sides of the argument. Political is the harder one to argue. However, it is a political issue in the way that when an election comes up, the people running can use their views to get more votes and ultimately win the election. My opinion with this issue is that sport hunting should be illegal or cut down greatly. It is a violent form of recreation that is not needed for anything besides pleasure. This type of hunting has also helped with the extinction of animal species all over the world including the Tasmanian tiger. Animals that are injured during hunting attacks, endure long and painful deaths. In a study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that 11 out of 22 deer that had been shot with “traditional archery equipment” were wounded but not recovered by hunters. I believe that this issue needs to be resolved and sport hunting should become illegal.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/wildlife-factsheets/sport-hunting-cruel-unnecessary/
Sport hunting is a perfectly normal thing to do, that started long after the extinction of the first animal. Back to when the only civilization were tribes, men would hunt to prove themselves better than others, and to gain reputation among others in the clan/tribe. Recreational hunting actually has a large effect on animal overpopulation. If recreational hunting was to suddenly become illegal, and stop, it would have a major impact on the environment causing many other problems and extinctions. (ex. no more hunters killing foxes= more foxes= less rabbits which could cause the extirpation of rabbits in a certain area, also leading to more environmental issues.) What we can do however, is better reinforce laws against hunting endangered animals to ensure more of a balance in the environment, and the food chain.
DeleteI do not agree with Daniel's opinion. The world has existed billions of years before modern-day humans where nature regulates the over-population of animals itself if nothing interferes with it. We can not hold ourselves up to a god-like figure and think that we are the 'chosen' ones who must regulate the animal population. No - our world will not fall apart if people stopped hunting just as it did not fall apart millions of years ago. As brutally honest as this may be, if we are truly going to kill animals for the sake of overpopulation, it is just as easily arguable that there is an outstanding number of 7 BILLION people living on the earth today, so... does that mean we are going around and shooting humans for the sake of environmental balance? We can't have double standards when it comes to these topics just because we value ourselves more than the animal on the wrong side of the gun.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Daniel on this. Hunting has been done by every meat eating animal for as long as there has been life on earth. If hunting was made illegal it would get rid of the natural food chain that has worked perfectly well for thousands of years.
DeleteGood post. I would like to see some statistics in here to back up what you are saying. In Ontario a fishing license goes like this - Breakdown by category:
Delete30% - planning, policy and regulatory (purple)
22% - conservation officers and enforcement (green)
19% - species and ecosystem science (red)
13% - population health, rehabilitation and enhancement (brown)
11% - Outdoors cards and licensing (blue)
5% - safety, education and promotion (yellow)
I agree with the comment above. In my opinion, I a well believe that trophy hunting is immoral and should be illegal. The point of extinction was brought up above and I think that is a huge issue with trophy hunting. It is one thing to hunt for food, but as the animal population for some of our wildlife is going down trophy hunting is becoming an even bigger issue. The extinction of certain animals will result in a shift in the food change which could effect several things negatively. Having a stuffed dead animal or the thrill of killing one is not worth the potential outcome that could arise from trophy hunting.
ReplyDeleteMark this one:
ReplyDeleteI believe the biggest issue at hand here is that we are allowing six hundred people to hunt for fun, which leads to people believing it’s acceptable to hunt any species, with or without license. I personally feel it is inhumane to kill an animal for pleasure, especially to the point where the animal in on the verge of extinction. First we have an economic problem, the hunters believe they support conservation by boosting local economies because the trophies hold high value, but very little of the money is actually returned into the community. The first link I’ve cited shows that trophy hunting brings in $200 million annually, and the community only receives 3% (6 million). If you split 6 million throughout a community, between each category, everyone gets practically nothing. If a hunter really wanted to help the community, there are so many more charities or businesses they could contribute to without actually killing an animal. The second problem is environmental, the hunters are controlling a cycle that controls itself. Over population and extinction are issues that can be handled without us, as a species, killing off other species. Thirdly, big game hunting is a political issue. It is an issue politicians can make promises with, without following through since the issue is worldwide and politicians make more local changes. Alongside, it is also a social issue. Many people hold strong opinions on the ethics of hunting for pleasure because they care about the animals. From my point of view, the only shots taken at lions should be with cameras.
http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question.pdf
It's a truly frightening thought that people justify killing these majestic creatures with such stupid excuses. On the overpopulation problem being dealt with using hunters, an ecosystem will control itself without our interference. The planet has been around for billions of years with ups and downs and it has not needed our help in anyway to control itself. The biggest problems have arisen since we have taken control. If any species overpopulation needs to be "taken care of" it's our own, and luckily we don't have animals hunting us for fun.
DeleteIt's a truly frightening thought that people justify killing these majestic creatures with such stupid excuses. On the overpopulation problem being dealt with using hunters, an ecosystem will control itself without our interference. The planet has been around for billions of years with ups and downs and it has not needed our help in anyway to control itself. The biggest problems have arisen since we have taken control. If any species overpopulation needs to be "taken care of" it's our own, and luckily we don't have animals hunting us for fun.
DeleteI agree with Annabelle's statement, any overpopulation problems can be and will be taken care of by the ecosystem itself. Also as Tosha and I have both said, the earth and its inhabitants have existed long before humans came into the picture and successfully survived and most likely will continue to do so long after our existence as long as we don't ruin conditions in which survival is possible. As Annabelle stated, The planet has been around for billions of years with ups and downs and it has not needed our help in anyway to control itself. Humans have no right to step in and try to correct the way they believe nature should be. Once we try to take over, we end up causing more problem than we have solved.
DeleteI agree with Annabelle's statement, however I do believe that banning recreational hunting would be unethical and would cause social issues to arise. Hunting in Canada and other countries has existed since the beginning of time, the problem comes from an excess amount of hunting and hunting being done in foreign countries. In my opinion hunting of endangered or even near threatened species should not be legal or should be cut drastically. With extinction comes the opportunity for more animals to die out, and we really shouldn't be taking the risk of extinction.
DeletePersonally, I disagree with Sam. Yes, maybe social issues will arise but no matter what decisions the goverment or whom ever makes for the rest on us, someone will always no matter what have a problem with something. It is impossible to please everyone. I understand hunting has existed since the begging of time but now "food" has become so unbelievably accessible hunting has become completely unnecessary. In todays society hunting has solely turned into a sport. A sport that gets competitive and I believe has a huge negative impact regarding extinction.
DeleteGood post. I like the stats to back up your statement. Check the info on hunting and fishing licenses in Ontario posted above.
DeleteMark this one: The issue that is focused on within this article is the inhumane actions of sport hunters who kill animals for their own pleasure rather than necessity. Hunting endangered animals is violent, cowardly and should not be legal anywhere in the world. Even though these sport hunters are killing some of the most endangered and vulnerable species we have today, the legalization and issuance of permits to hunt enables sport hunters to carry on with the killing of vulnerable species. This is done for no beneficial reason apart from the personal thrill that it offers and the bragging rights it gives to hunters. The permits and legalization give these people the mentality to believe what they are doing is okay whether they have permits or not, as well as fight people on the issue. I personally believe hunting is often called a “sport” which is used to disguise a cruel and needless activity. I strongly disagree with the trophy hunters who argue that they boost local economies while they are not bringing the profit back to communities; instead they are harming innocent animals and disturbing wildlife. The destruction they are causing to endangered species populations far outweighs any small economic benefit they may provide to local communities in which they carry out their killing. Sport hunting harms Canada’s reputation internationally due to the ethical arguments against sport killing. The concerns with Canada’s reputation are growing as the issues around endangered species become more widely debated. As debate continues it creates social divisions within Canada between those that support sport hunting and people who are increasingly opposed. Trophy hunting has a large impact on the environment due to its effect on the natural food chain as major predators are removed. Where major predators are diminished through sport hunting it can result in population imbalance for other species that would otherwise be prey to the predators. For these reasons sport hunting creates moral, ethical, social and environmental issues that are important and should not be looked at lightly.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with you Erin. The only thing that these hunters bring back is bragging rights, or a part of the animal, such as the head, to show as an actual trophy. They are making no profit which doesn't impact economy, but if they killed for food or resources, they could help the economy. I also agree with you that it is a cruel and needless activity. I understand hunting for food as well as other resources, but I do not get why people feel the need to kill an animal for their own thrill.
DeleteGood post. Get some numbers to back up your thoughts.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark this please:
ReplyDeleteHunting is often called a “sport,” to mask the truth of it being a needless killing spree. Yet, the idea of a sport involves competition between two consenting parties, a competition including rules and fairness. In hunting though, the animal is forced into a live-or-die situation that always leads to the death of the animal, whereas the hunter leaves, his/her life never remotely at stake. Aside from the unfairness in it, I believe trophy hunting is immoral and wrong for the two sole reasons that it has a negative impact on the environment and it is a waste of food and resources. Common environmental issues caused by hunting for sport are that many animal populations are decreasing, either due to being hunted or a lack of food. We are not only contributing to the reduction of certain populations, but also affecting other species by taking away their possible food source. Another issue is cultural significance and local dependence. We often see stories about tourists hunting animals for sport, that are either of cultural significance, such as tigers to Chinese culture, or animals that are depended on by the local area for either food or other parts. While it can be argued that the hunting of certain animals helps keep numbers controlled to prevent over-stocking and over-grazing, often times the most commonly hunted animals for trophies are those that face extinction and don’t need to be controlled.
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-free2/habitats-campaign/anti-hunting/
Good post. Get some numbers to support your opinions.
DeleteMark this please:
ReplyDeleteHunting is often called a “sport,” to mask the truth of it being a needless killing spree. Yet, the idea of a sport involves competition between two consenting parties, a competition including rules and fairness. In hunting though, the animal is forced into a live-or-die situation that always leads to the death of the animal, whereas the hunter leaves, his/her life never remotely at stake. Aside from the unfairness in it, I believe trophy hunting is immoral and wrong for the two sole reasons that it has a negative impact on the environment and it is a waste of food and resources. Common environmental issues caused by hunting for sport are that many animal populations are decreasing, either due to being hunted or a lack of food. We are not only contributing to the reduction of certain populations, but also affecting other species by taking away their possible food source. Another issue is cultural significance and local dependence. We often see stories about tourists hunting animals for sport, that are either of cultural significance, such as tigers to Chinese culture, or animals that are depended on by the local area for either food or other parts. While it can be argued that the hunting of certain animals helps keep numbers controlled to prevent over-stocking and over-grazing, often times the most commonly hunted animals for trophies are those that face extinction and don’t need to be controlled.
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-free2/habitats-campaign/anti-hunting/
I also agree with what Courtney's arguments were. It is completely unacceptable in my opinion to willingly end another beings life for a sole purpose of satisfaction. Humans automatically have an advantage over ANY animals because of the weapons they use and the strategies and baits they use. These resources that we have leave the unsuspecting innocent animals without a chance at survival. What if the tables were turned? Would the active hunters have a change of mind? Would it be different if they imagined themselves or their families without any means of protection or warning in such dangerous unfair situations?
DeleteI agree with you Courtney that it has a very large waste of food and resources that could be used to help people in need. Hunting used to be used for food and other resources, but now it is becoming more and more common to hunt just for sport. Humans are the only species that hunt for sport, and it really isn't needed
DeleteI agree with your comment that hunting should not be considered a sport as the likeliness of each side winning is not equal. Humans enter the area in which they wish to hunt animals while the animals, especially predators like lions, don't know that they are being hunted. It is also unfair due to the fact that we have weapons that can hit targets from kilometers away, and the prey of the hunters do not even stand a chance. I believe that there should be more enforcement and more rules on what, when, where, and how many animals can be hunted. Overall, this was a well written comment and I agree with your statement.
ReplyDeletePlease mark this Comment:
ReplyDeleteI throughly disagree with trophy hunting. Each life should be valued equally, whether it is a human life, a cat life, a lion life, or hedgehog life. As humans, we see ourselves superior to all other forms of live because we can communicate and develop in a higher form than many other species. Since we see ourselves this way, we feel entitled to whatever we want from nature. We don't think twice about killing a spider, or setting mouse traps, but we find it horrible when there are lives lost in war or natural disasters. I completely disagree with the lack of respect that we have as a species for other forms of life. The "trophy hunting" idea is something I find upsetting; we are killing animals for their hides, or for the thrill. Killing is not a sport; we send people to jail for murdering other people, why is it okay to kill animals for nothing more than their hides?
The National Geographic article is based on an American study. Americans import more than 14 hides an hour, every single day. They main countries that they import from are Canada, South Africa, Namibia, Mexico and New Zealand. America is right between Canada and Mexico... One would think that they would have many of the same species, so why are they wasting fuel to transport animals they could hunt themselves, and eat. Of the top 10 imported species, 5 of them live in America. So now humans are wasting fuel, wasting the life of an animal and wasting their own money.
Governments of many countries have starting viewing this as an issue because many species are becoming endangered, and there are now a considerable amount of laws. This means that Americans are importing hides illegally in numerous cases. I found a source that states the top 8 endangered but still hunted species in the world. This list includes 7 species that are imported to America as trophies. These species include Cheetahs, Hippos, Polar Bears, Grizzly Bears, African Lion, African Bush Elephant, and the Black Rhino. Both the Black Rhino and Grizzly Bear are strongly protected and have fines if they are killed. The other 5 species can only be hunted by someone who has a license and some of these licenses cost $50,000.
I 100% do not agree with trophy hunting, or hunting as a sport unless the animal is being used in a respectable manner (as food). However, I agree with the new rules and regulations that are helping protect these animals. A large fee will cause many hunters to stick to less expensive animals which happen to be the animals that are not endangered. A raise in the license price will also cause the product to raise in price, and this will deter some consumers from buying these hides. While trophy hunting is something I view very negatively about, I am glad to hear that some governments are working to prevent this.
Lindsay
Source: http://listverse.com/2013/06/11/8-endangered-species-still-hunted/
I agree that sport hunting is a cruel, unnecessary, and unethical “sport”. However killing older, weaker, or more aggressive animals can prove beneficial, it is nearly impossible to identify such characteristics prior to pulling the trigger. (Shaban, Bott, Villareal, & Carroll, 2015). I also believe that hunting for food is justifiable; however, this sport involves hunting for fun… and a trophy. I think it’s interesting that the carcasses are referred to as trophies. People take great pride in their actions whilst justifying it with claims that it “boosts local economies”. It’s also ironic that sport hunters argue that their actions promote wildlife conservation. The financial contributions to wildlife conservation become irrelevant when the species that they are hunting are already endangered or become endangered as a result of their tactics.
Deletehttp://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/US-Hunters-Trophy-Hunting-Endangered-Threatened-Animals-347267462.html
Great post. Do you believe these new measures will increase poaching?
DeleteMark this one: Hunting played an important role for human survival in prehistoric times, but the contemporary “sportsman” essentially stalks and kills animals of all sorts for “recreation.” I see hunting as a violent and cowardly form of “entertainment” that revokes hundreds of millions of animals every year. I believe that animals of all kinds were here on earth long before humans, and nature was able to take care of itself, as it should be allowed to do without the disruption of humans. Hunting is often referred to as a “sport,” to conceal a cruel, needless killing spree as a socially acceptable activity. However, the concept of sport involves competition between two consenting parties, do you think the hundreds of millions of animals who have been victims of hunting gave their consent? These animal are FORCED to “participate” in a life-or-death situation that always leads to the death of the animal, whereas the hunter leaves unharmed. Hunters frequently use food and electronic callers as bait to unsuspecting animals. The animal, no matter how well-adapted to escaping natural predators they may be, have virtually no chance of survival once having been targeted by a rifle or a crossbow. Quick kills are rare, and many animals suffer elongated, painful deaths when hunters injure but fail to kill them. Bow hunting aggravates the problem, scientific studies that have shown that bow hunting has more than a 50 percent wounding and crippling rate. Some hunting groups promote shooting animals in the face or in the gut, which is a horrifically painful way to die. Hunting has contributed to the historical extinction of animal species all over the world, some of the more familiar species eliminated are; the passenger pigeon, the eastern elk, the eastern cougar, and the Tasmanian tiger. According to the WFF Global there are approximately 100,000,000 different species on earth. the extinction rate is about 0.01% each year, which may seem miniscule but is infact much larger than it appears. This means at least 10,000 different species are becoming extinct EACH year. Hunting is allowed on 60 percent of U.S. public lands, including in over 50% of wildlife refuges, national forests and state parks on federal land alone! Canada’s reputation internationally due to the ethical arguments against sport killing. As the issues concerning endangered species becomes more widely debated, Canada’s reputation is on the line. Social divisions are created among Canada between those who support sport hunting and those who do not. Environmental: hunters are controlling nature's cycle that will deal with overpopulation and extinction. Social: it is very controversial with opinions on both sides of the topic. Political: politicians are able to make unreliable promises with, affecting the issue worldwide. Economic: hunters believe they are supporting conservation by lifting local economies because of the high value of rewards and trophies, when very little of the profit is returned to the community.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.all-creatures.org/hope/DOE/4%20-%20Archery%20Wounding%20Rates%20and%20Shots%20per%20Kill.htm
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/
Great post with stats too. Do you eat meat? How is this any different?
DeleteIn reply to everything,
ReplyDeleteI dont understand why our lives are valued more than others. It truly baffles me. Imagine the frantic panic that arrived when the media brought The Dog Meat Festival to our attention?? The only reason that was so core shattering is the fact that we view dogs as our friends, family members if you will. If we looked at all lives that way, I know the world would be in a completely different (but better) state right now. Trophy hunting must be linked to some form of psychopathic tendencies.
I completely agree with Kasie on all points. I hope that one day our society will see ourselves as equals with other animals and not as superiors. The notion and the very thought that we are the 'owners' of this earth is the very idea that got us into the mess that is our environment today: extinction, factory farms, deforestation, and climate change. No sane person would enjoy and condone the suffering or death of another animal who can feel fear, anger, pain, and sadness just as much as we do. We can't make excuses for this horrible practice any longer because all of them have been proven false.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMahshad - Mark this one please:
ReplyDeleteEver since the cruel murder of Cecil the Lion - the thirteen-year-old beautiful Southwest African Lion that was shot with an arrow and left to suffer for 40 hours before being shot with a rifle and killed by a wealthy American dentist, Walter Palmer - the morality of trophy hunting has been seriously questioned among society, animal rights groups, and politicians.
Trophy hunting - or in my opinion, hunting in general - is an absolutely disgusting and rampant practice that many people commit for many reasons. In this case, I am talking about first-world citizens who do not need to hunt in order to survive. First of all, let us make it clear that paying tens of thousands of dollars to kill a vulnerable or endangered animal in an enclosed area with a rifle is not a sport - a sport is an activity where there is competition and where there is a chance for defeat. When hunting, the human is always the winner with absolutely no chance of defeat, and sadly, the sentient being with a bullet or bow lodged into its skull or its gut is always the loser.
As human beings with intellectual thought and compassion, we should know that just because we are more intelligent than other animals should not mean that we have the right to destroy and slaughter everything around us – we must remember that we share this world with other beings and that we do not own it – especially for the purposes of killing for entertainment and transporting a carcass hundreds or thousands of miles to stuff and hang in our homes.
Trophy hunting reaps no benefits to anybody but the hunter and the shooting facilities. While big game hunters pay roughly 200 million dollars to kill 105,000 animals in Africa each year, only 3 percent of this money goes to local communities. Trophy hunting does not help wildlife and is not needed for population control – these arguments do not hold up. In Africa, there are approximately 20,000-35,000 wild lions left, and an annual hunting rate of 600 lions per year. In about 35 years, we could be saying good-bye to the African wild lions forever – and for pro hunters, you will finally have gotten the ‘population control’ you were hunting for.
We wouldn’t let serial killers and wealthy psychopaths pay money to money-hungry doctors to allow the murder of cancer patients in hospitals for thrill and excitement, so why do we think it is okay to let wealthy psychopaths pay money-hungry shooting facility owners to shoot vulnerable or endangered beings purely for the enjoyment of watching them suffer unimaginable pain and a brutal death? We are allowing this sort of pornography to fall in the hands of the sadist.
https://www.thedodo.com/does-hunting-help-conservation-1389284014.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11767119/Cecil-the-lions-killer-revealed-as-American-dentist.html
Also, this issue is social, political, environmental, and economical.
DeleteMurdering a human cancer patient is not akin to hunting animals. The moral status of a cancer patient is not equivalent to that of an animal. Further, I believe that your argument about allowing serial killers to kill cancer patients is flawed. It's such a far stretch. We may show acts of speciesism, but we aren't killing our own species for a good time. Also, hunted animals (not in the case of trophy hunting) are used as food, whereas dead humans do not serve the same purpose...As well, I disagree that hunting is psychopathic behaviour. Aggressive, but not psychopathic
DeleteI too disagree with parts of what Mahshad is saying.
DeleteTo start off, it is trophy hunting that is considered "disgusting" and not hunting in general. General hunting is used for many people as a form of survival, especially amongst aboriginal peoples. Secondly, as Chelsea said, your argument regarding psychopaths, crazy doctors, and pornography does not relate to trophy hunting. Trophy hunters are not psychopaths, and the main purpose for the trophy hunters is not pleasure, not purely for watching animals suffer,but for money. I also don't understand the comment about pornography as hunters and sadists are two very different types of people.
Great post. Stats are good. Trophy hunting is a very different sport compared to subsistence hunting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark this one please:
ReplyDeleteThe issue shown within this article is the fact the number of people that take pride in killing animals just for sport, and not using them for food or for reasonable purposes other than just a sport. Hunting used to be done for food and the animal's hide, yet now it is commonly done for sport. Many animals are endangered and/or are going extinct. I don't understand why we value our lives over the lives of other animals. I also think that this is a social, environmental, economy, and political issue.
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-free2/habitats-campaign/anti-hunting/hunters/trophy-hunting/
Your post is a little short. Needs more detail and stats to back up your opinion.
DeletePlease mark this one:
ReplyDeleteThe sport of trophy hunting is itself an issue but the specific issue addressed here is that we are hunting and killing more animals then there are to spare. While the article states that most people that hunt for sport claim that it funds the conservation efforts for the animals that they hunt, the reality is that they the funding is not enough to repair the damage they are doing to the species being hunted. While some of the countries where these endangered species are being hunted down for sport have tightened their laws surrounding it or have restricted it altogether, the countries who are supplying the hunters with permits (America and Canada) have to make more of an effort to limit this dangerous sport.
I feel very strongly about this topic. Hunting for the mere sport of it is, in my opinion, a disgusting and heinous act that should be restricted as much as possible. It completely disregards the actual population of the animals we have at our disposal. It is completely unnecessary as well. The act serves no other purpose than providing people with bragging rights. Canned hunting, while it seems to help preserve the numbers of endangered species, is inhumane in itself. The animals are kept in poor conditions. The article I found said "Largely based in South Africa, the welfare issues involved in canned hunting, which include severe over-crowding and inadequate access to food and water, have recently been exposed by environmental film maker Ian Michler in his film Blood Lions." This shows that even the solutions, are not real solutions.
This hunting industry does provide Canada with a lot of money through the charges and tax placed around hunting permits. However, in the grand scheme it is an unnecessary practice that takes more than it gives.
This issue can be seen as political due to the laws surrounding it and the universality of it. It is also social because of the controversy it stirs up. And economic due to the fact that this industry unfortunately brings in a lot of money for Canada and many arguments for keeping it are based on this factor. Here are some of the articles I used: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34116488
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Hunting+generates+million+economic+activity+annually+Victoria+says/8875723/story.html
Great post. If we didn't trophy hunt in these poorer regions would the animals be any better off? Does trophy hunting or environmental degradation cause more damage to the local animal population?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am going to assume this is the one you want marked. Please post: Mark this one... first so I know next time. Thanks.
DeleteGood post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.2 Trophy Hunting
ReplyDeleteThe biggest issue identified in this article was the sport hunter’s want to kill vulnerable species. I disagree with the actions of the Hunters. Although the hunters themselves do not feel killing animals for recreation is affecting our society negatively, it is. By hunting the animals for fun, we are messing with the natural evolution animals undergo. Unlike nature, hunters allow the weakest of a species to run free as it is best to kill the biggest ones; this messes with the theory “survival of the fittest”. For example, Lions, if they are not fast enough to catch their prey (gazelle) they will eventually die off allowing the species to become stronger. Aside from messing with nature, hunting also takes away from animal rights. From an animal rights perspective, killing an elephant is just as bad as killing a cow. Both are being killed against their will. Hunter’s claim it is for the good of the animals however Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals Voice says that by killing animals, we are taking away “biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.” This issue falls under environment and economy. I believe this issue falls under both environment and economy because the money made from hunting species in their environment, eventually comes back to improve wildlife habitats and ensuring the survival and well being of species. The money is also used to improve nature trails, campsites and other public outdoor areas. This issue is political as well as it is usually the government allowing these people to get their hunting license and they are also the people who are supposed to be taking care of those wildlife areas, but aren't. The government and other people are simply blaming the hunters, however, they would not being doing this in the first place if the government did not allow them to. If the government simply made trophy hunting illegal, this issue would come to an end.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-hunting/
http://protecttheharvest.com/2014/11/14/hunting-america-economy/
Monica - Mark this one please:
ReplyDeleteI believe that trophy hunting is a big issue because people should not be hunting for a prize. I do not think animals should be suffering just for “fun”. If hunting takes place I believe it should be for reason where the entire animal is being used for a good purpose. Another issue with trophy hunting is that people are overtaking advantage of animals. In my eyes, trophy hunting has absolutely no purpose but making the hunters feel accomplished. But if it continues animals may start becoming less and less in population.
I feel that trophy hunting should be illegal. I think this because humans are not gaining from it in any way. Animals are living shorter lives just for the fun of some individuals and I believe that is unacceptable.
I think that this topic would fall under the Environmental category because it has to do with our world’s nature and wildlife. I believe that if we continue to harm these animals for our enjoyment, it will begin to affect the environment and the animal’s chains. For example, if too many of one animal is killed, the food chain will be altered and animals may become endangered.
In Canada there are guides for big game hunting around the North West Territories. I do not think that these trips are doing anything for Canada except make money. I think it would be a better idea to have tours looking at these animals rather than killing them. Through research I have found that there are quite a lot of individuals who enjoy this “sport”. Even though these guides and trips are bringing in money for Canada, I still believe the lives of the animals are more important.
Sources: http://www.huntnahanni.com/
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-reasons-trophy-hunting-is-not-conservation/
Great post. Some stats next time would be good to help back up your points.
ReplyDelete