In 2011, one in every 12 African elephants were killed (Phelan). The tusks are not the only parts of the elephants that are hunted, and I honestly think they are not worth it. We should leave the beloved animals in the wild so we do not lose the entire species as a whole. Every year, more and more species are being executed due to humans needs and wants. If killing animals is what is “needed” to survive then the Earth will turn into a
Poaching is defined as illegally capturing, injuring, or killing an animal that is not on your land. The motive to commit this crime over the years has shifted from simply from individuals illegally hunting game to large organizations slaughtering animals to gain profit. Many are aware of this issue, but underestimate the sheer enormity of it. According to The Fish and Wildlife Service, there is an estimated $15-20 billion global market generated from poaching and trafficking of animals and their body parts. They have also reported that over 8,000 endangered species do not receive any federal protection.
They killed thousands of exotic wild on representing hundreds of different species in foreign countries primarily in Africa. Trophy Hunters don't really care about the conservation. They want to be the ones to tell others what kind of ways they went through to kill an animal. “ Heads, horns, tusks, and other body parts of most these animals are legally and sometimes illegally imported as trophies to the US.” Since these animals are being killed for the pleasure of the eye there's no point in killing them. Killing animals also means killing the food chain that they were involved in.
Supporters claim that their sport helps conservation efforts and helps bring money to the communities in which they are hunting from. Opposers claim that occasionally there is a fine line between trophy hunting and poaching, because much of it is illegal. They also claim that only a small percent of the money made goes to help conservation efforts, and it causes a decrease in the wild life population. I consider myself as an opposer in most cases. I don’t believe it is our job to decide whether an animal should live or die, and I don’t see how killing an animal is supposed to help the population.
In today’s world there is no other possible way to manage our wildlife in such an effective manner as we do it now. What people need to realize and accept is the fact that hunting does not harm the animals as severely as leaving them to overpopulate does. There would be more problems that would present themselves in the future if nothing was done to prevent them now. Henceforth hunting should be acknowledged as a benevolent act that conserves wildlife, promotes personal growth for people who hunt, and maintains
Then we send it in tho get the law signed and they had 350,000 many trails to stop this and i feel we should just get a law and if people are caught harming an animal they need to pay and go to jail for 2 year i know it might seem like a lot but if they are harming animals they might be harming kid their kid or just other kids. If we stop the animal testing we stop animal abuse and child abuse. If we cut off all their ways to get the stuff they need like serums and testing equipment then they can 't test the animals and if we get the law passed then they can go into the places and take all of their equipment and then we can make sure that people stop animal testing. So if we get ride for the stuff and supplies they won 't be able to harm them ever again. If they don 't stop and they continue they can soon kill it all living.
Now, there are some cons to wildlife conservation, but so many more pros. For example, in the book called “Wildlife in the Anthropocene” by Jamie Lorimer she talks about how elephants rarely breed in captivity, but doesn’t explain how. Some good things about elephants in captivity are that they interact with people everyday, and can adapt to various environments. In her book, she never really picks a side so she doesn’t have a strong opinion, but I think they are so crucial to keeping animals alive. Lorimer had some good points, but there are always those one people who have to disagree with everything.
“this was war. They’d just throw hand grenades at the elephants, bring whole families down and cut out the ivory. I call that mass destruction” (Siebert 358). In Africa hunting elephants for their ivory is a way to make money, a way to live. The big question is whether it is moral or not to tell the humans to stop when it is their main source of income.
There would be no legal reasons he couldn’t kill this elephant. The only problem he has with doing it is morally. He sends for an elephant gun, but originally he wasn’t going to use it, he mainly had that for his own protection. He ends up shooting the elephant against his better judgment. Second of all, action is a main theme.