Você está na página 1de 5

Abby Grossmeyer

English 111
Dr. Lacey
29 October 2019
Saving Animals’ Lives, Not Hunters’ Pride
From the beginning of time, hunting has always been a way to provide food for families
and feed the hungry. It is animal instinct to hunt for food when in need. However, modern times
have made the idea of individuals hunting for food almost completely obsolete. When taking a
look into modern hunting, we see people looking forward to going out in the woods every year to
get the kill, not to put food on the table. The reality is most families do not need to hunt for deer
and other game; they can go to the store and pick up meat that has already been fully prepared
for them. Now, hunting for food is much less common than hunting for sport. One form of
hunting for sport is trophy hunting, which is “the selective hunting of wild game animals… [that]
may be kept as a hunting "trophy" or "memorial" (Argys, 2017, para. 9). Trophy hunting should
be restricted in the United States and on a global scale because it is unethical, impractical, and
scientifically not beneficial.
How can one determine whether a hunter is hunting for the kill or for the meat? It is very
difficult to differentiate between the two in their simplest forms. Based off of Charisa Argys’
definition, trophy hunting can be as simple as killing an animal, eating the meat, then either
preserving part of the animal as a trophy or capturing the event in some way (Argys, 2017, para.
9). Many people in our nation are considered trophy hunters with this definition. It isn’t
necessarily the stereotypical wild, cruel activity that people imagine. Trophy hunting in its
extreme form is traveling in search of a specific animal with the intent to kill for preserving
purposes. According to Myanna Dellinger in her article, “Trophy Hunting- A Relic of the Past”,
it is illegal in the United States to hunt endangered species (Dellinger, 2019, p. 26). This does not
protect any animals not in danger of extinction. However, killing an animal for display, even
with the intent to eat the meat, is still morally inappropriate. To clarify, any form of hunting for
pride is trophy hunting. What differentiates these people from someone who needs the animal’s
meat is their reasoning for searching for the biggest, strongest animals. A trophy hunter wants
more bragging rights, while a hunter truly in search of food only wants a larger animal because
that means more meat for their family. This isn’t a choice for people who hunt for meat, it’s an
obligation--killing the animal for food, not for pride.
Grossmeyer 2

One main reason trophy hunting is morally inappropriate is because many animals end up
suffering a slow and painful death due to the hunter’s lack of sharpshooting skills. A study done
by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows the harsh reality of hunting
(“Sport”, 2003, para. 3). In their study, PETA followed 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer. “Of
the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not
recovered by hunters.” (“Sport”, 2003, para. 3). Statistically, this means only half of the deer that
the completely legal, qualified hunters shot in this study were retrieved. That means half of the
deer were shot, wounded, and lived to suffer through the pain. Even harsher realities are true for
foxes and ducks. PETA states that twenty percent of foxes are shot again after they had been
wounded; after this second shot, ten percent of the foxes still escape from the hunters (“Sport”,
2003, para. 3). They also estimate that “more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved”
every year” (“Sport”, 2003, para. 3). If hunters really needed the meat they are wounding these
innocent animals for, then why are they leaving them to die in vain? The answer to that question
is because a majority of hunters in the United States don’t need the meat.
Part of the thrill of hunting is the adrenaline rush one gets from the split-second decision
to shoot. The problem with this decision is that no matter how much time there is to line up the
shot, the hunter still always has a chance of missing. In Hank Shaw’s article, “On Killing”, he
discusses the difficulty of lining up the shot (Shaw, 2017, para 9). Shaw states, “A rabbit can
leap back into the brambles in [little] time. Unless you are perfect in that split second, the animal
wins. And being human, we are far from perfect… We hunters fail more than we succeed”
(Shaw, 2017, para. 9). Even a hunter, like Hank Shaw, will admit to more failed attempts than
successes. When hunters finally do take the chance and hit their target, there is still no guarantee
how the animal will react. Typically, there are no boundaries for the wounded animals, so they
instinctually escape and are forced to suffer through the pain. A mount on a wall and bragging
rights are not worth causing a pure animal such trauma.
Despite the common argument that hunting helps contribute to population control, it is
proven there are no environmental benefits to trophy hunting. The argument trophy hunters hold
is that the animals would die regardless, due to starving or being eaten by natural predators.
However, hunting actually disturbs the natural selection process. Looking at the history of all
animals, one would find that the weakest or sickest animals do not survive in the process of
natural selection because they are not the most fit to survive. Hunting disturbs this phenomenon
Grossmeyer 3

because trophy hunters search for the healthiest, largest animals they can find. This leaves the
weak, likely-to-die individuals of the species in the wild. As PETA states, “Starvation and
disease can be tragic, but they are nature’s ways ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive
and maintain the strength of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she
might starve or get sick is arbitrary and destructive” (“Sport”, 2003, para. 6). This statement
confirms that, although trophy hunters do control the population of the hunted animals, it is not
necessarily helpful to the environment in any way. Rather, it hurts the environment through
disrupting a natural process that has taken place since the beginning of time.
It is not enough for exclusively the United States to limit trophy hunting within the
country; restrictions also need to be made to prevent trophy hunting on a global scale. Currently,
Americans are allowed to travel around the world, hunt exotic animals, and bring them back to
the United States without extensive questions asked (Dellinger, 2019, p. 26). According to
PETA, there has been good progress regarding airlines shipping trophy kills internationally
(“UPS”, 2017, para 3). However, UPS is one company that refuses to discontinue shipping the
kills (“UPS”, 2017, para 3). They are allowing, even perpetuating, the killing of these wild
animals throughout the world. In order to discourage trophy hunting, transborder transportation
of animals killed for trophy needs to be more strictly regulated. This is a necessary step because
other countries, such as Canada and those in Africa, will not refuse these paying tourists. These
traveling hunters bring in money to the various countries, and the countries cannot and will not
turn away profit. Therefore, the United States has to be the country to put an end to the cruel
hobby we have ignored for decades. Closing this transborder transportation of animals prevents
U.S. citizens from returning with the trophy kill, and, as a result, discouraging them from leaving
the country for that purpose.
The hard truth is that overhunting, among other issues created by man, is causing the
Earth to begin undergoing a potential sixth mass extinction (Dellinger, 2019, p. 25). More and
more species are being hunted into endangerment, and eventually to extinction. Although there
has been effort to prevent extinction of select species, not enough is being done to counteract the
overhunting of these unique domestic and exotic animals. The average individuals out of the
hunted species are becoming increasingly weaker due to the unnatural killing off of stronger
individuals, and predators are better able to get to them. According to Myanna Dellinger, if the
world continues on the way it has for the past few decades, thirty to fifty percent of all species
Grossmeyer 4

living now will be extinct as soon as 2050 (Dellinger, 2019, p. 28). As one could imagine, this
will impact the Earth in a major way. It could demolish whole ecosystems and create more
problems for our Earth, which is already showing consequences from previous generation’s
damage. Despite this fact, trophy hunters continue to hunt and defend their hobby without being
informed of the serious trouble they are causing.
Although trophy hunting is unethical, impractical, and harmful to the environment
without great reason, a practice of hunting with cause exists. Long before metal tools and
synthetic clothing, Native Americans hunted for animals to make these items. Paul Trotta
discussed in his news article, “Native Americans & White-tailed Deer”, the numerous ways
Native Americans made the most of the animals they killed (Trotta, 2006, pp. 3-5). Utilizing
every part of the animal is a sign of respect in their culture. This respect is a quality trophy
hunters lack in the aftermath of the kill. From the antlers and hides to the tendons and bones,
Native Americans used the whole animal (Trotta, 2006, pp. 3-5). They made clothes, tools,
instruments, even rattles out of hooves. They did not like to kill, but it was necessary for them to
survive. Because of this, they let nothing go unused. Ultimately, there should be nothing left of
the animal to display if it was killed for the right reasons. It is not the hunt that is wrong, it is the
wastefulness and disrespect for nature.
Trophy hunting should be restricted in the United States and on a global scale because it
is unethical, impractical, and scientifically not beneficial to anyone or anything. Despite the
argument that hunting in general actually benefits the Earth through population control, the truth
is that overhunting does more harm than good. This cruel activity is causing disturbance to the
natural way of life on Earth. What can we do to help put an end to this? We can petition to
restrict trophy hunting in the United States. We can demand for stricter laws for transborder
transportation in regard to trophy kills. We can help people realize their wastefulness and
encourage them to use every part of the carcass in any way possible. Educating people on the
detrimental realities that result from hunting for sport will cause action to be taken to prevent
more innocent animals from dying in vain.
Grossmeyer 5

References
Argys, C. (2014, April 17). The Great Debate: Trophy Hunting Versus Meat Hunting. Wide
Open Spaces. Retrieved from https://www.wideopenspaces.com/great-debate-trophy-
hunting-versus-meat-hunting/.
Dellinger, M. (2019). Trophy Hunting - A Relic of the Past. Journal of Environmental Law
& Litigation, 34, 25–60. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=eih&AN=136380290&site=eds-live
Shaw, H. (2017, January 31). On Killing. Hunter Angler Gardener Cook. Retrieved from
https://honest-food.net/on-killing/.
Tell UPS to stop shipping hunting trophies. (2017, July 20). People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. Retrieved from https://support.peta.org/page/2208/action/1?
locale=en-US
Trotta, P. (2006). Native Americans & White-tailed Deer. New York State
Conservationist, 61(2), 2–5. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
?direct=true&db=gft&AN=22895066&site=eds-live
Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary. (2003, December 15). People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/wildlife-
factsheets/sport-hunting-cruel-unnecessary/.

Você também pode gostar