The Argument Against Trophy Hunting

845 Words4 Pages
Imagine your posterity growing up in a world without the Big Five. The Big Five are the game animals, Lion, Leopard, Rhinoceros, Elephant and Cape Buffalo. These animals are significant because they are the hardest to hunt, making their way to the top of hunter bucket lists. Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game for human recreation. The “trophy” parts of the animals are kept to be displayed while the carcass is left behind. Trophy hunting is unnecessary and does little to help threatened species. Trophy Hunting is detrimental to the overall populations of species. Only 12.3% of contribution to wildlife conservationists comes from Trophy Hunters who claim they are making dramatic changes in a positive manner for animals like…show more content…
In Africa, a village of the name Sankuyo earned $600,000 from the 120 animals that were allowed to be victims of trophy hunting(Onishi). Without trophy hunting, there will not be as much money owned by these African villages and the villages will slowly decline to poverty. To add to this argument, lions have been seen entering the villages, where the ban has been placed, to find food because they would normally eat the elephant carcusses left by trophy hunters. The people of these villages are claiming to be poisoning those animals who trespass in order to save their own crops. Are humans really that much more important than these innocent animals?
Trophy Hunting should be banned. There is overwhelming evidence that supports trophy hunting as a negative influence to our environment. Ban Trophy Hunting now, before it wipes a whole species of our planet. The upcoming generations of children on this planet deserve the right to lay eyes on an elephant or a lion, etc. With the continuation of Trophy Hunting, these animals have a less likely chance to survive to 10 years from now (Scientific American). Therefore, Trophy Hunting should be banned so the Big Five can have a chance to survive
Open Document