Trophy Hunting, Ethical or Unethical?

[Jayhawker Soule]

So the animals who aren't hunted by people won't ever be killed by another animal?

Animals kill animals therefore humans killing animals for fun is OK. Brilliant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From an objective perspective, ...

Sophomoric rubbish.

 

[dust1n]

I can understand that. I dislike a lot of modern hunting simply because it's just not fair. If you're doing it for food, yeah, use whatever you have to. But if you're doing it for genuine sport...unless you're hunting a Tyrannosaurus you don't need a rifle that can go through an engine block.

It would be more respectful if they actually had to go on a traditional hunt, possibly getting a single animal after weeks at tracking. Some of the stuff I was looking online too much resembled farms for the most part, with no actual aspect of "hunt" involved. Unimpressive, because I find hunting and trapping techniques impressive.

At the end of the day, as long as it's within the confines of some sort of law that's actually overseeing a hunting season, and the body is always used entirely/given away to people who will eat it. Do I understand the drive to do it? No. Looks like a giant waste of money for a trophy that doesn't actually resemble in skill or huntsmanship. It's unimpressive.

 

[Quintessence]

From an objective perspective, losing a couple more species makes little difference to humans, or to the world.

Your biology teachers apparently taught you nothing about the science of ecology. That is unfortunate. But more unfortunate is the fact that this is not particularly uncommon.

 

[BSM1]

I can understand that. I dislike a lot of modern hunting simply because it's just not fair. If you're doing it for food, yeah, use whatever you have to. But if you're doing it for genuine sport...unless you're hunting a Tyrannosaurus you don't need a rifle that can go through an engine block.

I believe he took ol' Cecil down with a crossbow. Even though the lion was only wounded the Doctor did the ethical thing by tracking the animal for 40 hours just to end the lion's suffering. He could have just gone home.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm well aware of how loss of species may affect an ecosystem.
I was talking about how it would effect humans and the world overall.
It wouldn't, not significantly enough for me to care anyways.

From an objective perspective, losing a couple more species makes little difference to humans, or to the world.

The loss of lions would not affect the entire world.
It wouldn't be a devastating blow to humans either.
The ecosystem they reside within may undergo a drastic change, but that is outside what I commented towards.

 

[Nakosis]

Being a vegetarian for me, killing animals is unethical.
Being a cynic, if folks find pleasure in killing lions with a powerful rifle from a safe distance, I suppose I can't argue with that, though I'd much rather see them trying to do it with a pocket knife.

 

[Nakosis]

That's what meat eating in the U.S.A. is.

Yes, bacon is for pleasure.

 

[wintersolstice]

Not hunting for food or to cull an overpopulated species, but just to "bag" a trophy.

What do you think, ethical or not, and why?


.

Trophy hunter = serial killer (of other species)

 

[Quintessence]

From an objective perspective, losing a couple more species makes little difference to humans, or to the world.

Except this isn't an objective perspective. You've not presented any sort of risk analysis, any sort of data, any sort of quantification. You've overlooked that the claim of "this makes a difference" in any sense aside from statistical/mathematical significance is always a value judgement, and hence subjective.

 

[Bunyip]

I hunt for food, hunting for trophies is unethical.

Although while I think it quite revolting, the cash flow from rich Americans wanting to shoot sable in Africa has saved the species from extinction.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Except this isn't an objective perspective. You've not presented any sort of risk analysis, any sort of data, any sort of quantification. You've overlooked that the claim of "this makes a difference" in any sense aside from statistical/mathematical significance is always a value judgement, and hence subjective.

I see that I should have worded what I said more carefully.
However, the point of my original post is still valid and this, in no way, effects my stance of neutrality.

I'm not sure I could find any sort of data to support my claim 'if lions go extinct it will not significantly affect humans'.
But I will try.
-
Whether killing off lions is subjectively right/wrong is not something I care about, therefore I am neutral.

I came to this conclusion after only thinking about it logically and with reference to some of my knowledge in biology.
I am not a ecological biologist, nor am I qualified to be one. But, my view point is based off of basic reasoning.
I don't need a degree in this filed to understand that lions being hunted outside of my continent do not affect me.
Nor do I need the same degree to discern that lions aren't that important to human beings.

Hence my stance on this issue.

 

[SomeRandom]

I see that I should have worded what I said more carefully.
However, the point of my original post is still valid and this, in no way, effects my stance of neutrality.

I'm not sure I could find any sort of data to support my claim 'if lions go extinct it will not significantly affect humans'.
But I will try.
-
Whether killing off lions is subjectively right/wrong is not something I care about, therefore I am neutral.

I came to this conclusion after only thinking about it logically and with reference to some of my knowledge in biology.
I am not a ecological biologist, nor am I qualified to be one. But, my view point is based off of basic reasoning.
I don't need a degree in this filed to understand that lions being hunted outside of my continent do not affect me.
Nor do I need the same degree to discern that lions aren't that important to human beings.

Hence my stance on this issue.

Well I don't know about Scientific Evidence. For I am not a scientist either. I'm sure another more learned poster could help you out in that regard.

But in a tangible way it could potentially affect us for the worse, I suppose.

There's eco tourism. If you go in and completely **** up Africa's ecosystem beyond the pale, you're pretty much cutting off a vital money resource for the humans who live there. This is why (as well as ****loads of money) there's designed hunts. If you control the hunting to an extent, not only are you generating an interest in rare species keeping them alive, but you can somewhat preserve the ecosystem at the same time.
The same is somewhat true of the Barrier Reef where I live. We're not really in a position to say, oh **** the Barrier Reef the animals and all the money it can generate from tourists, we don't need that for our economy. True we probably need it less than some African countries, but still. It's better the have money flowing into the economy than not, regardless of where you live. Which is why I tend to side with the Greens on this one, at least. Plus, without such cool sights, people involved in scuba diving as a profession could also see less money potentially.

Humans do in fact rely on animals for money, in many different areas even. Farming and agriculture, honey/food production (roughly 1/3 of our food is still pollinated by bees! http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn#zxfbgk7) tourism, scuba diving, zoos, various fields scientific research (with potential human applications) the production of anti venom of both spiders and snakes etc etc etc.

If the animals are all but gone because that's how the ecosystem coped with our meddling, that's a lot of money gone that could have helped us and potential medical research squandered even!! (For example Fruit Flies are actually still used in medical research. http://www.genescient.com/research/why-fruit-flies/)

Then you have the ultimate "holy **** look at what we've done" scenario. Which is actually quite prominent in futuristic and apocalyptic stories now that I think of it.
Which proposes the domino effect. Because we've ****ed with the predators too much, there's nothing left to keep the herbivores in check. This leads to mass loss of vegetation and some pretty bad results for the remaining herbivores. Which in turn leaves us a barren wasteland. Which is not a particularly great thing for us. This could lead to the complete loss of Honey Bees and their potential replacements for example. Which is rather bad for us, our food and even domesticated animals!

Of course the last two occurrences are rather more on the side of "worst case scenario." But meh, it could happen still.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well I don't know about Scientific Evidence. For I am not a scientist either. I'm sure another more learned poster could help you out in that regard.

But in a tangible way it could potentially affect us for the worse, I suppose.

There's eco tourism. If you go in and completely **** up Africa's ecosystem beyond the pale, you're pretty much cutting off a vital money resource for the humans who live there. This is why (as well as ****loads of money) there's designed hunts. If you control the hunting to an extent, not only are you generating an interest in rare species keeping them alive, but you can somewhat preserve the ecosystem at the same time.
The same is somewhat true of the Barrier Reef where I live. We're not really in a position to say, oh **** the Barrier Reef the animals and all the money it can generate from tourists, we don't need that for our economy. True we probably need it less than some African countries, but still. It's better the have money flowing into the economy than not, regardless of where you live. Which is why I tend to side with the Greens on this one, at least. Plus, without such cool sights, people involved in scuba diving as a profession could also see less money potentially.

Humans do in fact rely on animals for money, in many different areas even. Farming and agriculture, honey/food production (roughly 1/3 of our food is still pollinated by bees! http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn#zxfbgk7) tourism, scuba diving, zoos, various fields scientific research (with potential human applications) the production of anti venom of both spiders and snakes etc etc etc.

If the animals are all but gone because that's how the ecosystem coped with our meddling, that's a lot of money gone that could have helped us and potential medical research squandered even!! (For example Fruit Flies are actually still used in medical research. http://www.genescient.com/research/why-fruit-flies/)

Then you have the ultimate "holy **** look at what we've done" scenario. Which is actually quite prominent in futuristic and apocalyptic stories now that I think of it.
Which proposes the domino effect. Because we've ****ed with the predators too much, there's nothing left to keep the herbivores in check. This leads to mass loss of vegetation and some pretty bad results for the remaining herbivores. Which in turn leaves us a barren wasteland. Which is not a particularly great thing for us. This could lead to the complete loss of Honey Bees and their potential replacements for example. Which is rather bad for us, our food and even domesticated animals!

Of course the last two occurrences are rather more on the side of "worst case scenario." But meh, it could happen still.

I understand much of this now.
I have been pushed into research on this subject, something very interesting actually.
Now I understand that my point of view concerning the effects of species concerning humans is incorrect.
I apologize for earlier claim I have made.

I will still not vote on this poll, however; as whether or not trophy hunting is ethical doesn't concern me.
I will say that now I believe it is not beneficial to over hunt trophy animals.

 

[SomeRandom]

I understand much of this now.
I have been pushed into research on this subject, something very interesting actually.
Now I understand that my point of view concerning the effects of species concerning humans is incorrect.
I apologize for earlier claim I have made.

I will still not vote on this poll, however; as whether or not trophy hunting is ethical doesn't concern me.
I will say that now I believe it is not beneficial to over hunt trophy animals.

Fair enough.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Not hunting for food or to cull an overpopulated species, but just to "bag" a trophy.

What do you think, ethical or not, and why?


.

I beilive that it is unethical due to the following reasons.

1: Needless destruction of life/the environment.
2: Waste of food source to both human and non-human hunters.
3: The activity of trophy hunting can lead hunters to hunt more rare (often endangered) animals.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

I understand much of this now.
I have been pushed into research on this subject, something very interesting actually.
Now I understand that my point of view concerning the effects of species concerning humans is incorrect.
I apologize for earlier claim I have made.

I will still not vote on this poll, however; as whether or not trophy hunting is ethical doesn't concern me.
I will say that now I believe it is not beneficial to over hunt trophy animals.

When two men of the same beliefs is presented with a truth opposing those beliefs,
The Wise Man adapts. The Foolish Man rejects reality.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

It is wrong in so many ways. I can never understand how anyone can hurt an animal not even during hunting season

 

[Windwalker]

A person I know posted this recently. I think it speaks something for itself that scarcely needs additional words.....

"Just got back from the best wedding rehearsal ever!!! Out in the country, great friends, good meal...................prairie dog shooting!!!"​

Why? Just why? Power over the defenseless for no reason other than to kill as a celebration of a good time with family and friends? I sickens me. It is beneath any form of self-aware comprehension. The prairie dog has a more human conscience.

 

[Skwim]

I believe he took ol' Cecil down with a crossbow. Even though the lion was only wounded the Doctor did the ethical thing by tracking the animal for 40 hours just to end the lion's suffering. He could have just gone home.

Without its head to show off? No way.

"— The dental practice of a Minnesota man who killed a well-known lion in Zimbabwe has reopened.

Walter Palmer’s River Bluff Dental said in a tweet Monday that it was beginning to see patients again. The tweet said Palmer wasn’t at the office.

An Associated Press reporter saw people going in and out of River Bluff Dental. A security guard posted outside the building Monday declined to answer questions and told the reporter he had to leave."

source​