animal hunting should be banned worldwide essay

Arguments for and Against Hunting

White tail deer are at the center of this debate.

animal hunting should be banned worldwide essay

University of Southern California

Ohio Wesleyan University
Brandeis University
Northeastern University

visualspace / Getty Images

Animal Rights
Endangered Species

Legitimate arguments abound for and against hunting for the control of the population of deer and other “nuisance” wildlife; or for sustenance for people who kill animals so they can eat them. For many people, the issue is complex, particularly for those who are (and intend to remain) meat-eaters. After reading the arguments pro and con, you may find yourself leaning strongly to one side — or you may find that you're still on the fence.

What Is Meant by 'Hunting?'

Most people who argue in favor of hunting are not arguing in favor of trophy hunting, the practice of killing an animal simply to show off its head and pelt. Trophy hunting is, in fact, abhorred by the majority of the public with a recent survey showing 69% of Americans are against it. Often, the animal being hunted is a rare or endangered animal, but even trophy hunting for wolves and bears is unpalatable to many people.

The killing of wild animals for food is a different story. Though it was, at one time, a way of life and necessary for survival, today, hunting is a controversial topic because it is frequently regarded as a recreational activity. Many people are concerned about safety issues, and society’s attitudes towards animals are changing. Some hunters oppose certain practices they consider unethical, such as baiting, canned hunting (in fenced areas), and hunting of stocked animals.

At the heart of the non-trophy hunting debate in the United States is one species: white-tailed deer. In many areas in the U.S., white-tailed deer flourish because of the lack of natural predators and the abundance of deer-friendly habitat. As pockets of green space shrink and disappear in our suburbs, the species has become the center of the debate over hunting, and many who consider themselves neither hunters nor animal rights activists find themselves drawn into the debate. The debate centers on practical and ethical issues including deer management, human/deer conflicts, non-lethal solutions, and safety.

Arguments in Favor of Hunting

Hunting proponents argue that hunting is safe, effective, necessary, and inexpensive to taxpayers.
The injury rate for hunting is lower than that of some other forms of physical recreation, such as football and bicycling.
Proponents argue that hunting is an effective form of deer management because it will remove a number of individual deer from a population, preventing those individuals from reproducing.
Since natural deer predators have been eliminated in many areas, hunters argue that hunting is necessary to perform the function of wolves or cougars in keeping the deer population in check.
Hunting proponents also argue that reducing the deer population will reduce human/deer conflicts, such as car/deer collisions, Lyme disease, and landscaping damage.
Compared to sharpshooters and immunocontraception, hunting is inexpensive to taxpayers because hunters will kill the deer at no cost. Also, hunting permits are sold by state wildlife management agencies, which are partially or fully supported by the sales of permits.
Hunters argue that killing the deer is better than letting them starve to death.
Hunters argue that hunting is a tradition, a ritual or a bonding experience.
Regarding ethics, hunting proponents argue that killing a deer for food cannot be worse than killing a cow or a chicken. Furthermore, unlike the cow or the chicken, the deer lived a free and wild life before being killed and had a chance to escape.
Hunters also argue that killing a number of deer benefits the ecosystem as a whole.

Arguments Against Hunting

Hunting opponents argue that hunting is unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, and unfair to taxpayers.
Opponents point out that compared to some other forms of recreation, hunting injuries are far more likely to be fatalities. Based on data compiled by the International Hunter Education Association U.S.A., hundreds of people have died in hunting accidents in the US over the past decade.
Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads.
Contrary to popular belief, hunting is not the only way to address Lyme disease. The ticks humans encounter on grassy areas are often spread by mice, not deer. Additionally, hunters who dress deer or squirrels have a higher risk of tick bites.
And as long as suburban landscaping includes deer-preferred plants such as tulips and rhododendrons, that landscaping will attract hungry deer, no matter how many deer there are.
It may also be the case that hunting to reduce the number of deer is less effective than contraception. Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, for hunters.
Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though about 90% of Americans do not hunt.
Hunters out for trophies, such as elk and deer with large racks, are killing the strongest and healthiest of the species, not the weak and starving they claim to be putting out of their misery. Killing the stronger members of the species leaves a permanent consequence for the species as a whole.

The hunting debate may never be resolved. The two sides will continue to debate safety, effectiveness, and cost, but will probably never agree on the ethics of killing wild animals for food or recreation.

Pacelle, Wayne. “ Survey of American Electorate Reveals Overwhelming Opposition to Trophy Hunting .” The Humane Society of the United States . Published December 5, 2017.

Cawthorn, Donna-Mareè, and Louwrens C. Hoffman. “ The Bushmeat and Food Security Nexus: A Global Account of the Contributions, Conundrums and Ethical Collisions .” Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.), vol. 76, 2015, pp. 906–925., doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.025

Jennings, David. " It's Time to Stop Kicking the Can and Ban Canned Hunting ." Vermont Journal of Environmental Law .

Williams, Scott C., et al. “ Evaluation of Organized Hunting as a Management Technique for Overabundant White-Tailed Deer in Suburban Landscapes .” Wildlife Society Bulletin , vol. 37, 2013, pp. 137-145., doi:10.1002/wsb.236

Loder, Randall T., and Neil Farren. “ Injuries from Firearms in Hunting Activities .” Injury , vol. 45, 2014, pp. 1207-1214., doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.04.043

Sheu, Yahtyng, et al. “ Sports- and Recreation-Related Injury Episodes in the United States, 2011–2014 .” National Health Statistics Report, No. 99, November 18, 2016.

“ Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool .” Maryland Department of Natural Resources .

“ Deer Population Control Methods – Cost & Effectiveness Comparison .” Hilltop Conservancy .

Barnhill, Anne, et al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics . Oxford University Press , 2018.

“ Deer Can Be a Threat to Forests .” New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

Bestetti, Valentina et al. “ If Hunters End Up in the Emergency Room: A Retrospective Analysis of Hunting Injuries in a Swiss Emergency Department .” Emergency Medicine International, vol. 2015, p. 284908., doi:10.1155/2015/284908

" Hunter Incident Database ." International Hunter Education Association U.S.A .

“ Facts + Statistics: Deer Vehicle Collisions .” Insurance Information Institute .

Buchthal, Joanna, et al. “ Mice Against Ticks: an Experimental Community-guided Effort To Prevent Tick-Borne Disease by Altering the Shared Environment .” Phil Trans R Soc B , vol. 374, 2019, doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0105

“ Disease Precautions for Hunters .” American Veterinary Medical Association .

Gamborg, Christian, et al. “ Ethical Management of Wildlife. Lethal Versus Nonlethal Control of White‐Tailed Deer .” Conservat Sci and Prac , vol. 2, 2020, doi:10.1111/csp2.171

Pursell, Allen, et al. " Too Many Deer: A Bigger Threat to Eastern Forests Than Climate Change? " Cool Green Science . Published August 22, 2013.

“2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Knell, Robert J., and Carlos Martínez-Ruiz. “ Selective Harvest Focused on Sexual Signal Traits Can Lead to Extinction Under Directional Environmental Change .” Proc R Soc B , vol. 284, 2017, doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1788

Controversial Bear Hunting Returns to New Jersey
Cats Face Threats—and Can Cause Them—When They Roam
Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
What’s the Difference Between Coyotes and Wolves?
Rescuer Saves and Rehabs Hundreds of Wild Animals in Peru
Antlers vs. Horns: What's the Difference?
Why the Mustangs of the West Are Disappearing
Why Red Pandas Are Endangered
8 Incredible Animals Being Hunted Into Extinction
Trophy Hunter Kills One of Botswana’s Largest Elephants
Are Wolves Endangered? Conservation Status and Threats
Invasive Species: Wild Boar
UK Ban on Trophy Hunt Imports Aims to Protect 7,000 Species
Why African Wild Dogs Are Endangered and What We Can Do to Help Save Them
Gray Wolves Are Endangered Again in Most US States

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Hunting — The Ethical Debate: Why Hunting Should Not Be Banned

The Ethical Debate: Why Hunting Should not Be Banned

Categories: Hunting

About this sample

Words: 545 |

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Words: 545 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 802 words

3 pages / 1395 words

1 pages / 465 words

4 pages / 1970 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Hunting

In the play "Master Harold... And the Boys," ballroom dancing extends far beyond jazz music, swishing skirts and sashaying couples. It takes on universality of meaning as a symbol of a "world without collisions," an inherent [...]

In the poetry collection Gardening in the Tropics, Olive Senior instructs readers in the traditions of the Caribbean, like the traditional uses of Annatto and Guinep in her poem ‘Annatto and Guinep’ and the traditions of [...]

Eric Botton created the brand and the concept Bexley, French shoemaking institution 30 years ago without any industry knowledge in Lyon, France. He remains the president of the company to this day. But, in December 2017, the [...]

When I was a little girl, I recall an experience when a lady moved into a broken down house right down the street from mine. I remember feeling bad for her because her house looked sad and broken down. She was obviously broke [...]

The Green concept of the hotel industry is an increase in awareness since the late 1980s. The hotel sector is said to be one of the most energy and water intensive sectors in the tourism industry. When hotels are constructed [...]

This paper basically deals with self-driven cars and their vehicle to environment connection to provide low carbon dioxide emission, avoid accidents. Since the car is evolving with time in today's world ninety percent of car [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Ethics of Hunting: Debating the Pros and Cons

Hunting has been a part of human life since ancient times. While it used to be essential for survival, nowadays, hunting is mostly done as a recreational activity. However, hunting has also been a topic of controversy and debate for decades, especially when it comes to its ethics. On one hand, hunting advocates argue that hunting can be a necessary tool for wildlife conservation and management, while on the other hand, animal rights activists believe that hunting is cruel and inhumane. In this article, we will explore the pros and cons of hunting and its ethical implications.

Introduction

In this section, we will provide an overview of the topic and the importance of discussing the ethics of hunting. We will also introduce the main arguments of both hunting advocates and animal rights activists.

The Pros of Hunting

We will discuss the arguments of hunting advocates who believe that hunting can be a useful tool for wildlife conservation and management. We will explore how hunting can help control animal populations, prevent overgrazing, and fund conservation efforts. We will also discuss the benefits of hunting for local economies and tourism.

Controlling Animal Populations

By selectively targeting specific animals, hunters can help manage wildlife populations, ensuring that resources are not depleted beyond the environment’s carrying capacity. Overpopulation can lead to food scarcity, disease outbreaks, and damage to ecosystems, jeopardizing the well-being of both wildlife and humans.

In addition, regulated hunting programs provide funding for conservation efforts . Revenue generated from hunting licenses and fees goes towards habitat preservation, wildlife research, and maintaining protected areas. This financial support plays a vital role in safeguarding natural habitats and promoting sustainable practices.

When done ethically and within established guidelines, hunting can be an effective tool for wildlife management and conservation. It allows for the preservation of biodiversity and the protection of delicate ecosystems, contributing to the long-term sustainability of our natural world.

Preventing Overgrazing

Overgrazing occurs when herbivores consume vegetation beyond the capacity of the land to regenerate. This leads to the degradation of ecosystems, soil erosion, and a decline in biodiversity. Hunting can act as a natural mechanism to control the population sizes of herbivores, ensuring that grazing remains within sustainable limits.

By selectively harvesting specific animals, hunters help prevent overgrazing by reducing the pressure on vegetation. This intervention allows plant life to regenerate, ensuring a continuous food supply for herbivores and other wildlife species. The result is a healthier ecosystem that can support a more diverse array of plants and animals.

Moreover, hunting can provide economic incentives for landowners to manage their properties responsibly. Through hunting permits and fees, revenue is generated, which can be invested in land conservation, habitat restoration, and implementing sustainable land management practices.

When conducted ethically and in adherence to regulations, hunting can be an effective tool in preventing overgrazing. It promotes the long-term health of ecosystems, safeguards biodiversity, and fosters sustainable land use practices, ensuring the preservation of our natural heritage.

Funding Conservation Efforts

The funds generated from hunting licenses, permits, and fees play a crucial role in supporting conservation projects. These financial resources are allocated towards activities such as habitat preservation, wildlife research, anti-poaching measures, and the establishment and maintenance of protected areas. The revenue generated through hunting can be a vital source of funding, especially in regions where conservation budgets are limited.

Furthermore, hunting programs incentivize the conservation and management of wildlife populations. By implementing regulations and quotas, hunting helps ensure sustainable practices that maintain healthy population levels. This approach safeguards biodiversity, prevents overpopulation, and helps maintain the ecological balance within ecosystems.

In addition, hunting can foster a sense of stewardship among hunters. Many hunting organizations actively promote conservation education and ethical hunting practices , instilling a deep respect for nature and the importance of preserving wildlife habitats.

While the topic of hunting remains contentious, it is clear that when properly regulated and managed, hunting can provide crucial financial support for conservation efforts. By channeling funds towards conservation initiatives, hunting contributes to the protection of wildlife and the preservation of our natural heritage for future generations.

Benefits for Local Economies and Tourism

Hunting activities create employment opportunities, supporting outfitters, guides, and hunting lodges. These businesses provide services such as equipment rental, lodging, transportation, and meals, which directly contribute to the local economy. Additionally, the associated supply chain, including retail stores and restaurants, benefits from increased demand during hunting seasons.

Furthermore, hunting can attract tourists from near and far, boosting the tourism industry. Hunting enthusiasts often travel to explore new hunting grounds and experience the thrill of pursuing game in different regions. This influx of visitors leads to increased spending on accommodations, dining, transportation, and other local attractions, benefiting hotels, restaurants, shops, and recreational activities.

Local governments also benefit from hunting through the collection of hunting licenses, permits, and taxes. The revenue generated can be reinvested in infrastructure development, conservation efforts, and community services, improving the quality of life for residents.

While opinions on hunting may vary, its positive impact on local economies and tourism cannot be denied. When conducted responsibly, hunting contributes to job creation, revenue generation, and increased tourism, providing economic opportunities and supporting the growth of rural communities.

The Cons of Hunting

In this section, we will discuss the arguments of animal rights activists who believe that hunting is cruel and inhumane. We will explore how hunting can cause animal suffering and the ethical implications of killing animals for sport.

Animal Suffering

Animals targeted by hunters often endure prolonged suffering. The use of firearms, bows, or traps can result in wounds that are not immediately fatal, subjecting animals to prolonged agony. Moreover, hunting can disrupt the social dynamics of animal communities , leaving orphaned offspring vulnerable to starvation and predation.

There is also the concern of fair chase. In some instances, hunters use techniques such as baiting, hounding, or shooting from a distance to secure kills, which raises questions about the fairness and ethics of the practice.

While regulations and guidelines aim to minimize suffering, instances of wounded animals escaping and dying slowly remain a distressing reality of hunting.

As our understanding of animal welfare deepens, the ethical implications of hunting’s impact on animal suffering cannot be overlooked. Alternative methods of wildlife management that prioritize non-lethal approaches should be explored, ensuring that conservation efforts and population control are achieved without unnecessary pain and suffering.

Killing Animals for Sport

In the pursuit of trophies or personal satisfaction, some hunters prioritize the thrill of the kill over genuine necessity or sustenance. This approach raises ethical questions about the moral value of intentionally ending an animal’s life for personal gratification.

Moreover, the concept of fair chase is often called into question. The use of high-powered rifles, advanced hunting technologies, and enclosed hunting preserves can tilt the balance heavily in favor of the hunter, potentially undermining the principles of fairness and respect for wildlife.

Critics argue that killing animals solely for sport goes against our evolving understanding of animal welfare and the inherent value of all living beings. Advocates for conservation and animal rights emphasize the importance of promoting non-lethal forms of wildlife appreciation and conservation, focusing on ethical and sustainable practices that prioritize the well-being of animals.

While hunting can have valid arguments for its place in wildlife management, the act of killing animals for sport remains a significant ethical concern. Encouraging alternative forms of engagement with wildlife that respect their intrinsic value and promote their well-being is crucial for a more compassionate approach to conservation.

The Ethics of Hunting

In this section, we will discuss the ethical implications of hunting and how it can be viewed differently based on cultural, social, and personal beliefs. We will explore how hunting can be seen as a necessary tool for some, while others consider it cruel and unnecessary.

Cultural and Social Beliefs

The ethics surrounding hunting are deeply rooted in cultural and social beliefs, with diverse perspectives shaping our understanding of this controversial practice. Cultural and societal contexts heavily influence the perception of hunting, making it a complex and nuanced ethical issue.

For many indigenous and traditional communities, hunting holds significant cultural, spiritual, and subsistence value. These communities view hunting as an integral part of their identity, passed down through generations as a means of sustenance and connection to the natural world. For them, hunting is deeply embedded in their cultural heritage and traditional practices.

Conversely, in modern urban societies, hunting is often met with skepticism and criticism. Animal welfare concerns, shifting attitudes towards animals as sentient beings, and the availability of alternative food sources contribute to the ethical debate surrounding hunting. Many argue that hunting for sport or personal pleasure contradicts evolving ethical values that prioritize minimizing harm and promoting the well-being of animals.

The clash of cultural and social beliefs highlights the need for respectful dialogue and understanding. Recognizing and respecting diverse perspectives can foster a more inclusive and nuanced conversation about the ethics of hunting. It is essential to consider the impacts on animal welfare, ecological balance, and cultural traditions when assessing the ethical implications of hunting practices.

Personal Beliefs

The ethics of hunting are profoundly influenced by personal beliefs, with individuals forming their own perspectives on this contentious practice. Personal values, experiences, and moral compasses shape one’s stance on hunting, making it a highly subjective and complex matter.

Some individuals view hunting as a means of connecting with nature, embracing a responsible and sustainable approach to obtaining food. They argue that engaging in the process of hunting allows for a deeper understanding and appreciation of the natural world, fostering a sense of self-sufficiency and environmental awareness.

On the other hand, many people hold strong opposition to hunting, driven by their personal beliefs about animal rights and the inherent value of all living beings. They perceive hunting as an unnecessary and unethical act, asserting that alternatives such as plant-based diets and conservation efforts should be prioritized to protect wildlife populations and promote compassionate values.

Navigating the ethics of hunting requires respectful dialogue and consideration of diverse perspectives. Recognizing that personal beliefs play a significant role in shaping ethical stances on hunting allows for constructive conversations that promote understanding and empathy.

Ultimately, the ethics of hunting are deeply personal and reflective of individual values and experiences. It is important to engage in open and respectful discussions that encourage critical thinking and empathy towards differing viewpoints, fostering a more holistic understanding of the complex ethical considerations surrounding hunting.

In this section, we will summarize the main points of the article and provide our own perspective on the ethics of hunting. We will encourage readers to form their own

Based on the arguments presented, it is clear that the ethics of hunting is a complex and multifaceted issue. While hunting can have benefits for wildlife conservation and management, it can also cause animal suffering and ethical dilemmas. Ultimately, the decision to hunt or not is a personal choice that should be informed by one’s values and beliefs.

However, it is important to note that hunting should be done responsibly and ethically. This includes following hunting regulations and guidelines, using proper hunting equipment and techniques, and minimizing animal suffering. It is also important to respect the animals being hunted and their role in the ecosystem.

In conclusion, the ethics of hunting is a topic that continues to spark debate and controversy. While hunting can have benefits for wildlife conservation and local economies, it can also cause animal suffering and ethical dilemmas. It is important to consider both sides of the argument and make informed decisions based on personal values and beliefs.

Is hunting necessary for wildlife conservation?

While hunting can be a useful tool for wildlife conservation and management, it is not the only option. There are other methods, such as habitat conservation and non-lethal wildlife management, that can be used to maintain healthy and sustainable ecosystems.

How can hunting be done ethically?

Hunting can be done ethically by following hunting regulations and guidelines, using proper hunting equipment and techniques, and minimizing animal suffering.

Is hunting for sport ethical?

The ethics of hunting for sport is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people believe that killing animals for sport is unethical, while others see it as a legitimate form of recreation.

Does hunting benefit local economies?

Hunting can have economic benefits for local communities, such as creating jobs and bringing in tourism revenue. However, these benefits should be balanced with the ethical considerations of hunting.

Can hunting be a sustainable practice?

Hunting can be a sustainable practice if it is done responsibly and in accordance with wildlife management principles. This includes monitoring animal populations, using selective harvest methods, and minimizing waste.

One Reply to “The Ethics of Hunting: Debating the Pros and Cons”

Pingback: The History of Hunting: From Survival to Sport - Wild Boar Outdoors

Comments are closed.

Revolutionizing the Hunt: Mastering the Art of Drone-Assisted Hunting

Introduction: In the realm of hunting, tradition meets innovation as…

12 Hunting Hacks: How to Hunt Like a Pro, and Not Like a Fool

If you're a seasoned hunter or a beginner, you'll learn…

Don’t Be a Boar: How to Make Your Wild Boar Hunting Experience Unforgettable

Introduction Are you an adventurous individual who enjoys the thrill…

WILDLIFE WATCH

How killing wildlife in the United States became a game

Calls for a ban escalate as controversial hunting contests kill more than 60,000 animals a year.

LIBERTY, NEW YORK — Hunkered down in a camouflaged hut at dawn, Timothy Kautz trains his rifle on a deer carcass laid as bait in a snow-covered valley abutted by swamp and forest. Glancing at his cell phone, he reviews a recent remote camera video showing a grayish brown canine with pointy ears, a long, narrow muzzle, and a bushy tail snatching some venison.

So far this February morning, the coyote is a no-show.

“Maybe he’s seen too many of his friends shot here,” Kautz says, warming his hands by a portable gas space heater as fluffy snowflakes swirl outside the window. “He was probably sitting nearby when I got one of his buddies.”

Picture of people registering for coyote killing contest

A deputy in the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office in New York’s Catskill Mountains, Kautz, 42, is participating in an annual three-day weekend tournament in which nearly 400 hunters are vying to win a $2,000 grand prize for killing the biggest coyote.

The United States is the only country in the world where wild animals are killed by the tens of thousands strictly for prizes and entertainment, according to the Humane Society of the United States. It estimates that before the coronavirus pandemic, there were more than 400 contests annually, accounting for an estimated 60,000 dead animals each year. Texas alone holds at least 60 contests annually. Many competitions offer an array of wildlife to shoot, from raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, and groundhogs to foxes, bobcats, stingrays, and crows. Coyotes, widely considered a nuisance animal across the country, are the most popular target. (Some states hold contests intended to reduce invasive wildlife, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, feral hogs in Texas, and nutria in Louisiana.)

The contests are increasingly controversial, criticized as blood sport. So far, eight states —Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington—have outlawed the contests under pressure from conservation and animal welfare groups. Calls for a national ban got louder after a 2020 undercover investigation by the Humane Society revealed the emergence of killing tournaments through members-only Facebook groups, raising questions about whether online contests violate state wildlife and gambling laws. In early April, Congressman Stephen Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, and 15 co-sponsors introduced a bill to ban contests on all public lands.

In past years, award-winning coyotes at the contest in the Catskills, co-hosted by the Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs of Sullivan County and the White Sulphur Springs Volunteer Fire Department, weighed in at around 50 pounds. One of the first two coyotes Kautz shot this year registered 48.65 pounds. “It’s a big dog,” he says, though previous contests have taught him to temper his enthusiasm. “I always get beat by a few ounces. I hope I don’t get beat this year.”

For Hungry Minds

If Kautz doesn’t win the grand prize, he could come away with $500 for second place or $250 for third. To be eligible, hunters must pay $35 to enter the contest, which covers the cost of a Sunday dinner banquet and a five-dollar raffle ticket. In addition to paying for prizes, contest proceeds fund outdoor programs for families and environmental conservation. Aside from the biggest awards, hunters compete for the day’s heaviest kill ($200), and there are separate prizes ($100 each) for women and children to win. For each qualifying coyote, hunters receive $80. Awards and raffle prizes are distributed at the banquet. The raffle prizes include firearms, ammunition, and high-tech calling devices that lure animals to hunters’ waiting guns. Kautz already has a plan for what he’ll do with the prize money if he wins.

The rules of the Catskills contest stipulate that coyotes must be killed within the designated area that includes New York State, five counties in Pennsylvania, and one county in New Jersey. To validate that the animals were freshly killed, their body temperature must be between 68 and 100 degrees. Contestants are expected to follow state hunting laws , which liberally allow hunters to use bait, high-powered rifles, thermal imaging nightscopes, electronic calling devices, and tracking with hounds.

In the span of American history, coyotes are recent newcomers to the East. During the early 1800s, explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered coyotes only west of the Mississippi, where they described a “prairie wolf” about the size of a gray fox with a bushy tail and wolflike head and ears. Since then, coyotes have gradually moved east to fill the niche of vanishing wolves and mountain lions. Today, eastern coyotes—larger than their western ancestors because they interbred with wolves and domestic dogs—are cozy among humans, even thriving in some of the country’s biggest cities and suburbs, including New York and Chicago.

The coyote competitions may have started with the idea that exterminating them would help farmers and ranchers, but wildlife advocates say there are more humane ways to protect livestock. What’s more, they say the accessibility of high-tech hunting equipment, including night vision and high-powered firearms, has transformed the events into gratuitous slaughter.

“Wildlife-killing contests serve no legitimate purpose,” says Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. “Coyotes, foxes, and bobcats—animals essential to the health of our ecosystem—have long been persecuted because of misconceptions used as an excuse to kill them for fun and bragging rights. This cannot be allowed in a civilized society where our wildlife serve a critical environmental role.”

Weighing in

An ice storm followed by a full day of rain brings a slow start to this year’s Sullivan County hunt compared with the previous one, in February 2020, when participants killed a record 118 coyotes. The event begins officially at 12 a.m. on Friday, and by noon on Saturday, the pace is stepping up. Hunters in pickup trucks arrive with coyote carcasses wrapped in plastic and stuffed in insulated coolers to keep them from freezing in the subzero temperatures outside. There’s a line of dead coyotes—tongues dragging, fur stained with blood—on the ground at the weigh-in station behind the firehouse, where the rank smell of death drifts across the parking lot.

John Van Etten , the sportsmen’s federation president, dressed in an NRA camouflage baseball hat, Carhartt overalls, a flannel shirt, and rubber boots, mans the weigh-in. He jabs the coyotes in the gut with a meat thermometer to record their temperature, then attaches chains to the animals’ legs and hooks them onto a scale. As they hang, spinning in midair, blood trickles onto the snow. After the weight is recorded, Van Etten clips a toenail from a back paw—to make sure no one gets away with entering the same coyote twice. “The things people will do when there’s money involved,” he says dolefully.

Bill Miller, 61, dressed in camo coveralls, unloads three coyotes from his vehicle. He and his son, Kyle, 26, have been entering the contest for at least 10 years. “It’s one of the most exciting hunts going,” he says, adding he’s pleased that killing coyotes keeps Kyle from mischief. “These young guys aren’t out drinking, doing drugs, and getting in trouble,” he says. “They’re out hunting.”

“It’s a good adrenaline rush too,” Kyle adds.

Many of the hunters at the weigh-in talk about liking the challenge of killing such wily animals. “These guys are smart,” Kautz tells me. “If you trick one of them, you trick one of the best out there.” His technique for luring coyotes is baiting them at his hunting blind for about a month leading up to the contest.

Jeremy Harvey, 45, is disappointed that the coyote he’s brought from Burlington Flats, two hours away, is more than six pounds shy of Kautz’s front-runner. Harvey prefers hunting coyotes with hounds. He goes out at first light to locate a coyote track, then unleashes his dogs, Jett and Ace, whose special GPS collars allow him to track them using a handheld device. “It’s so much fun,” he says. “I used to hunt rabbits, but I could never get anybody to go with us. It seems like everybody wants to hunt coyotes all the time. You can get camaraderie, more guys. We have a blast. Play cards, drink beer, and have a lot of fun.”

Brittney Engle, 36, deposits a female coyote at the weighing station—38 pounds, according to the hanging scale. Engle says she loves hunting coyotes. She recently bought a nightscope to facilitate shooting in the dark. As the only woman to enter the contest this day, she’ll get a hundred dollars on top of the standard $80 for a qualifying coyote. Not bad for a night’s work, she says. “Not bad at all.”

‘This isn’t hunting’

The first documented wildlife-killing contest in the U.S. is believed to have been held by a group of ranchers in Chandler, Arizona, in 1957. The most lucrative of today’s contests is the West Texas Big Bobcat , held three times a year, in January, February, and March. This January, a three-person team of participants won the first-place prize—$43,720—for a 32.5-pound bobcat. (For the cat to qualify, the team also had to kill five foxes or coyotes.) More than 1,700 teams competed in the 2022 contests combined, providing a total payout of almost $400,000.

Michelle Lute is a conservation scientist with the nonprofit Project Coyote, which, in partnership with the Humane Society, has established a national coalition of more than 50 organizations fighting to ban wildlife-hunting competitions. They encourage wanton slaughter, Lute says. “A basic moral tenet is that it is wrong to take life without appropriate justification, and there’s no good reason for this whatsoever. Our group isn’t anti-hunting,” she says of Project Coyote, “but we are against hunting of carnivores because it is ethically indefensible and scientifically unjustified."

Not all hunters approve of the contests either. “This isn’t hunting,” says Robert Brown, a member of the ethics committee of the nonprofit Boone and Crockett Club , established in 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt and other hunters for the protection of wildlife resources. “It’s just shooting.” The techniques commonly used in contests are “unethical,” Brown says. “They give the hunter an unfair advantage.”

Back in February 2020, an undercover investigator with the Humane Society attended the Sullivan County coyote hunt and reported finding dead coyotes in the firehouse’s dumpster, including a large female that had been pregnant with a litter of pups.

In the wake of such investigations and the 2021 release of Wildlife Killing Contests , a graphic documentary produced by National Geographic Explorer Filipe DeAndrade , participants have become extremely wary of covert activists lurking in the crowd. Some hunters I meet question whether I’m a “legit” journalist writing for National Geographic. One man confronts me in the fire station saying I’m probably working undercover for PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Carl Lindsley, a Sportsmen’s Federation trustee, is wary at first but agrees to host me at the contest because he assesses that I’m genuinely interested in learning the hunters’ point of view. He remembers the activist who infiltrated the 2020 event. “Some people are upset with the idea of killing coyotes,” he says, sitting in a folding chair in the firehouse. But what that activist didn’t know, he says, is most of the coyotes in the dumpster were collected by a local fur buyer who skins them and sells their coats (for about $25 apiece) and advertises their skulls to buyers online.

What’s more, he adds, the contest serves as an important fundraiser for outdoor programs for children and their families and habitat restoration. “If all we did is sit around and brag about how many coyotes we got, and our pile of money, there would be no purpose for this,” says Lindsley, who retired in 2016 after working in wildlife management for 48 years with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Actually, if we don’t get any coyotes, I’m ecstatic—we get to keep more money for our programs.” It would be good if people would buy tickets just to eat at the banquet, he says, but he acknowledges that most people come for the shooting and the prizes.

Most wildlife killing contests aren’t fundraisers. They’re solely for sport. Hunters defend the competitions, online or in person, on grounds that participants aren’t breaking any laws—it’s widely legal to kill many predatory species, including foxes, bobcats, and coyotes, often without limits. And if it’s legal to kill them, they say, what’s the harm in holding a killing contest? A coyote’s “headed for the dirt anyways,” one hunter wrote on Facebook.

The ecological argument

“The ‘antis’ don’t understand we’re actually helping in the grand scheme,” Kautz says. Coyotes are overpopulated, he asserts, and they eat everything—fawns, turkeys, rabbits, squirrels—causing ecosystems to be out of balance. They also attack pets and livestock, including, recently, several of his mother’s sheep. “It was the first time it ever happened but probably won’t be the last,” he says. “I think the coyote population is up a bit.”

Animal-friendly laws are gaining traction across the U.S.

How ‘Tiger King’ helped kill the industry it made famous

How to survive an encounter with wildlife—from bears to bison

“Coyotes need to be put in check,” agrees John Van Etten, the sportsmen’s federation president, warming up inside the firehouse where contestants are milling about, admiring the entries, listed by the hunter’s name and the coyote’s weight, on giant pieces of white paper covering corkboards. “Hunters perform that role.” If not, he says, the coyotes suffer from illness, such as mange, a skin disease caused by mites, and starvation.

Project Coyote’s Lute often hears that argument, “but it holds no water,” she says. “Illness and starvation are a natural part of life processes in the wild, and their occurrence isn’t simply a matter of population size.” She argues that coyotes don't need to be controlled. "They're a native part of North American systems," she says. "They provide a full suite of ecosystem services—from rodent and rabbit control to reduced disease transmission and carcass cleanup—just as they have done for millennia."

A number of studies, including by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and several states’ departments of wildlife management, have found that killing coyotes actually can cause their populations to grow. When some coyotes are eliminated, the survivors have more small mammals to prey on, and as food becomes more abundant, coyotes produce bigger litters. Surviving females reproduce earlier, and more coyotes replace those that were killed. Soon, researchers have found, there are at least as many coyotes as there were before the killings began. A USDA study found that after 60 to 70 percent of coyotes in a roughly 260,000-acre Army base in southeastern Colorado were removed over two years, the animals recovered their losses in as little as eight months.

Often, the desire to eliminate coyotes is driven by a deep-rooted fear of wild predators. “Coyotes cause a lot of damage on farms and to the local wildlife,” says New York assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, who lives in the Catskills and has come to the competition to support her constituents. She says she’ll fight any legislation aiming to ban hunting contests in her state. “These contests protect our citizens. I have grandchildren running around outside, and you don’t want to see a coyote come up.”

There have only ever been two documented fatal coyote attacks on humans in North America, says Ohio State University ecologist Stanley Gehrt , who has been studying the animals in and around Chicago for more than two decades. In August 1981, a coyote snatched a three-year-old girl in the driveway of her parents’ home in Glendale, California. The attack likely resulted from neighbors feeding the coyotes, leading it to lose its fear of people, Gehrt says. Then in October 2009, two eastern coyotes mauled a 19-year-old woman in Cape Breton Highlands National Park , in Nova Scotia. That case was more mysterious. Biologists theorize that the coyotes were starving because the mammals they normally preyed on, such as snowshoe hares, had become scarce on the island, forcing them to hunt moose. The woman may have been an easier target.

A surprising discovery

A Humane Society investigator, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, recently made a surprising discovery online. In early 2020, as in-person wildlife-killing contests were being canceled to prevent the spread of COVID-19, hunters formed several members-only Facebook groups to provide a socially distanced alternative.

Group members pay a fee, usually between $30 and a hundred dollars, to register for 24- to 48-hour contests in which they aim to shoot the biggest and most animals of a designated species for cash prizes ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Contestants are required to submit a video showing themselves saying a pre-established code word or phrase and jiggling their limp prey, confirming that the animal was newly killed because rigor mortis hadn’t set in. In contests for the heaviest kill, the videos must show the animals’ mouths and anuses to prove they aren’t stuffed with rocks. Administrators collect and distribute prize money through PayPal, instructing contestants to select “sending to a friend” to avoid scrutiny.

“Our investigation showed online killing-contest groups include thousands of individuals representing almost every state in the country—some where killing contests are prohibited, and many where they are not,” says Humane Society president Block. “Federal legislation is necessary to clearly and uniformly end these vicious competitions nationwide.” Regulation and law enforcement are complicated at the state level, she says, but the federal government has clear authority to police interstate commerce. In February 2021, the Humane Society took the investigator’s findings to Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel. The organization reported that a Facebook group called Coyote Nation, created in March 2020 by a Michigan resident named Cody Lee Showalter, 35, is the largest and most significant of the online killing-contest groups detected so far. According to the group’s Facebook page, it has 3,200 members.

In a letter to Nessel, the Humane Society details how Coyote Nation’s competitions occur on a near-weekly basis, with cash prizes of as much as $8,000 and member demand for expanded contests, including for foxes, raccoons, and competitions for kids. The society also lays out what it alleges are the relevant legal violations in the state, including case law that illustrates the broad scope of the state’s gambling and private lottery statutes.

A spokesperson for the attorney general said the matter is under review.

Without discussing Coyote Nation specifically, Jen Ridings, Facebook’s policy communications manager, says the company’s rules prohibit online gambling and gaming involving money without the prior consent of the social media giant. But she noted that hunting, along with fishing, is exempt from policies forbidding people from promoting acts of physical harm against animals on the platform.

Coyote Nation’s Showalter declined to be interviewed and changed the name of his group to CN after being contacted by National Geographic . “Please do not discuss anything to do with our group,” he wrote on Facebook. “We have not had any issues with anti-hunters yet and I would like to keep it that way….What we do here brings the hunting community together for some honest competition, that was why we started it and that is why it’s still going strong today.”

‘Good job, man!’

At the White Sulphur Springs fire station, the last coyotes of the day have been strung up on the scale. It’s 2 p.m. on Sunday. The contest is officially over. Organizers do one final review of all the entries and tally how much each winner will receive by check. Then they hurry across the parking lot to the giant four-door garage, where a lavish banquet is under way, to announce the winners. Plates are piled high with roast beef, mashed potatoes smothered in gravy, corn, green beans, and coleslaw, washed down with beer and soda.

Eager to hear the final results, Kautz, still dressed in his camouflage and heavy boots, is sitting at a table with a hunter named Chuck Lewis, from Melrose, New York. Lewis drove two hours to enter six coyotes. None of his canines are prizewinners, but he says the two sleepless nights and the long drive were worth the effort because he’ll receive $480. “Right now, I’m fueled on cigarettes and coffee. I’ve had no sleep,” Lewis says. “I have coyote hangover.”

As he and Kautz discuss other contests they’ve done, Lewis mentions that he likes the online Coyote Nation competitions for something to do between in-person derbies.

Standing behind a table covered with raffle prizes, Van Etten finally speaks into a mic to announce the winners. All told, he says, 66 coyotes were killed. The heaviest was 48.65 pounds, shot by Timothy Kautz.

“Good job, man!” Lewis says.

“I can’t believe I won,” Kautz replies.

As the sun sets on the Catskills, Kautz is $2,440 richer. (In addition to the $2,000 grand prize, he receives $240 for entering three qualifying coyotes, and a bonus $200 for the heaviest on Friday.) He plans to put his winnings toward the purchase of a $6,000 thermal scope—upping his night game in future contests. He hopes the next time a coyote takes his bait, it won’t see him aiming for it.

How this golden-eyed feline became the biggest comeback in cat conservation

Are predators born fearing skunks?

Meet ‘Dogxim,’ the world’s first known dog-fox hybrid—and a genetic oddity

How fake animal rescue videos have become a new frontier for animal abuse

South Africa plans to end controversial captive lion industry

Environment
Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

History & Culture
History Magazine
Mind, Body, Wonder
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Your US State Privacy Rights
Children's Online Privacy Policy
Interest-Based Ads
About Nielsen Measurement
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Nat Geo Home
Attend a Live Event
Book a Trip
Inspire Your Kids
Shop Nat Geo
Visit the D.C. Museum
Learn About Our Impact
Support Our Mission
Advertise With Us
Customer Service
Renew Subscription
Manage Your Subscription
Work at Nat Geo
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Contribute to Protect the Planet

Join RPA’s Email List
Support RPA
Animal Abuse: It’s Why We Suffer
Rights of All Animals
Newsletters
Contact RPA

Op-Ed – Why Hunting Is Not a Sport

By David Cantor

Claims by hunters, officials, and outdoors columnists that hunting is a sport have long caused segments of the public to accept that notion. Yet an activity is not necessarily a sport just because those who practice it claim it is or because authorities reinforce the notion.

It is very much worth questioning whether hunting is in fact a sport-since hunting is a life-and-death matter with irrevocable results and many people deplore the deliberate killing of wildlife legally owned by all of us in common. The relevant facts lead to the conclusion that hunting is not a sport.

Consider activities universally accepted as sports, and you can see they share several qualities. Team sports like soccer, football, hockey, rugby, and basketball and sports of mainly individual effort like pole vaulting, shot put, marksmanship, skiing and tennis involve only participants who choose to take part and understand the object, skills, rules of the sport.

That cannot be said of hunting since key participants-the nonhuman targets of the human participants-do not know they are participating and do not choose to do so. They do not know the object is to kill them or the rules or regulations that govern hunting. Animals may sense danger, but that is a far cry from knowing they are participating in a sport. The more accustomed to human presence an animal is, the less “sporting” some hunters consider it to shoot that animal, but that does not mean shooting animals is a sport-it just means hunters choose to use that terminology.

Even in the most violent of sports, killing participants is never the object. Even though some people believe boxing should be illegal due to brain and other injuries often inflicted and deaths sometimes caused, inflicting injury or causing death is not the object of boxing. Hockey players, though castigated or ejected for undue violence, seek to get the puck into the opposing team’s goal and prevent it from entering theirs, not usually to harm or kill opponents.

In those sports as in others, all participants know their sports, know the risks, and choose to participate. Not so with hunting, in which the aim is to kill nonhumans forced to participate unbeknownst to them and in which severe wounding without death or with slow, agonizing death often occurs. Of course, no veterinary “trainers” rush onto the field to help wounded Canada geese, deer, mourning doves, or others while an aggrieved audience hopes for the best. After all, killing is the objective.

The only way around this argument that hunting is not a sport is to claim human beings are the only participants-that the animals are not participants. In support, one would have to claim hunting could take place without animal “quarry” or that animals are not conscious beings capable of participating in anything. Both would be patently ridiculous assertions. The first contradicts the definition of hunting. The second contradicts scientific knowledge that animals are in fact conscious beings and that they participate in many things, such as seeking food and cover, watching for predators to protect self and social group, building nests, raising young, and more.

If, by calling hunting a sport, hunters simply mean they have fun doing it, sure, that fits one definition of “sport.” But that would acknowledge hunting should not be respected like sports involving challenge, competition and sportsmanship including all participants’ knowledge and consent. And killing for fun, smacking of the utmost disrespect for life, is always discouraged in a civilized society.

That is not to say some hunters, wildlife officers, elected officials, and members of the press do not honestly believe hunting is a sport. But they are seriously mistaken. They misunderstand as countless people have always misunderstood things. But in the case of hunting, their error is a basis of terrible suffering in animals and of distress in people who care about animals. Therefore, it must be understood that hunting is not a sport.

This op-ed was first published in Animal Writes.

Trophy hunting: the arguments for and against

Michael Gove rules out UK ban on imports from controversial sport

Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Environment Secretary Michael Gove has come under fire after announcing that the UK has no plans to ban trophy hunting imports.

Cecil: decision to drop charges against lion killer 'disgraceful' Big game hunter shot dead while hunting lions in South Africa

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, Gove said that the issue was a “delicate political balancing act” and that he had been advised by wildlife charities to “be cautious” about taking a stance against the controversial sport.

“Don’t come in, you know, with your clod-hopping boots from the UK and necessarily tell people in each of these countries exactly how they should regulate their own wildlife,” the minister said during the interview on Beast of Man , a new podcast hosted by England cricketer Kevin Pietersen that investigates rhino poaching.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Trophy hunting - the killing of pre-selected animals, including some endangered species, under government controls - made headlines in 2015, following the fatal shooting of Cecil , a well-known lion in Zimbabwe, by American dentist Walter Palmer.

Australia, France and the Netherlands all implemented bans on the import of lion trophies in the wake of the ensuing public outcry, while Palmer was “forced to go into hiding”, The Independent reports.

In April this year, The Guardian published an open letter co-signed by dozens of celebrities, politicians and activists criticising the UK government for failing to take action on the issue.

“The number of animals killed by trophy hunters is staggering”, said the letter, which noted that “in total, 1.7 million trophies were legally traded worldwide between 2004-14, around 200,000 of them from threatened species”, and that “of these, 2,500 were brought home by British hunters”.

“Banning the import of hunting trophies will send a clear message to the international community that there is no place for trophy hunting in this day and age,” the letter continued.

But the BBC suggests that calls for a blanket ban “fail to take into account the complex relationship between hunting and conservation”.

So what are the arguments for and against a trophy hunting ban?

Avoid unnecessary suffering by animals

Anti-hunting charity the League Against Cruel Sports says that “clean deaths are not common” during trophy hunting, with many animals suffering lingering deaths.

This was the case with Cecil the lion, whom the charity reports was “first shot with an arrow and after 40 hours of agony was finally shot dead with a gun”.

“The practice should be banned on animal welfare grounds alone,” the league adds.

Prevent inhumane practices

Many campaigners argue that any form of hunting is inherently inhumane, but recent developments in the trophy hunting industry and a lack of oversight have facilitated the rise of particularly controversial techniques.

Education funding charity Vittana reports that some hunters have “resorted to lures and feeding stations, especially when hunting deer, as a way to make it easier to fill their tags”, a practice that strips away “many of the benefits that are spoken of when discussing the joys of hunting”.

“It would be like going out to the barn and shooting a cow to have beef, then declaring oneself a great hunter,” the charity says.

Related to this is so-called “canned hunting”, in which the animal is kept in a confined area in order to increase the likelihood of the hunter obtaining a kill. Pro-hunting blog I Trophy Hunt reports that canned hunting is seen as “damaging” by many fans of the sport, because the animals are “raised for hunting and do not possess the real tactics for running or escaping hunters”.

Protect against extinction

Animals that “stand out from the crowd because of their impressive horns or lustrous manes” are often targeted by trophy hunters, the BBC reports.

But these animals also have the “best genes”, and scientists have suggested that removing “even 5% of high-quality males risks wiping out the entire population”, the broadcaster continues.

Dr Rob Knell, an evolutionary ecologist at Queen Mary, University of London, says that “high-quality males with large secondary sexual traits tend to father a high proportion of the offspring”, allowing their strong genes to spread rapidly.

“Removing these males reverses this effect and could have serious and unintended consequences,” he warns.

The Independent reports that since 2015, the number of African lions in the wild has dropped from about 20,000 to 15,000.

UK government promised ban

Whether or not a blanket ban would have a positive impact on conservation efforts in Africa, the UK government appears to have gone back on its word regarding trophy hunting imports.

The Independent says that in 2015, then-environment minister Rory Stewart said the UK would “halt imports of parts of the big cats by 2017 unless the hunting industry cleaned up its act” - a pledge that was echoed by his successor Liz Truss the following year.

Land conservation

A “frequent argument” for allowing trophy hunting on private properties in Africa is that this “motivates land owners to preserve the ecosystem, instead of burning down the bush for cattle, African oil palm, or other agriculture”, according to the Brookings Institute .

“For a while in South Africa, where the controlled hunting of the white rhinoceros on private reserves is permitted, the species increased spectacularly,” says the Washington DC-based think tank. “But the positive results of that regime have withered in recent years due to a dramatic escalation of poaching, which has gutted the gains of well-managed licensed hunting.”

Funds anti-poaching efforts

Hunting packages in Africa are extremely expensive. One professional hunter and guide in Namibia told National Geographic that the going rate for a 14-day, single elephant hunt was about $80,000 (£60,000).

The wildlife magazine reports that hunters and government officials “often cite a hotly contested estimate by the Safari Club International Foundation”, a pro-hunting group with the stated goal of promoting conservation. According to the group, the estimated 18,000 trophy hunters who come to Southern and Eastern Africa each year contribute $436m (£330m) to the region’s GDP.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) states “that well-managed trophy hunting can provide both revenue and incentives for people to conserve and restore wild populations, maintain areas of land for conservation, and protect wildlife from poaching”.

But the numbers are disputed. The Humane Society International says that hunters actually bring southern and eastern Africa up to $132m (£100m) in revenue.

Wildlife population control

According to Vittana, hunting may help to maintain control of the local wildlife population in any given region.

The charity cites deer as an example, noting that the species “can cause a lot of damage in a short period” and are “opportunist animals that can safely eat more than 700 different plant species”.

Pro-hunting blog I Trophy Hunt makes the same argument, suggesting that well-regulated hunts can balance out any excess populations.

Educational value

According to Namibia-based company Kalahari Trophy Hunting , the sport is an important educational tool that can inform people on “compassion, patience, generosity, courage, fortitude and humility”.

Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist and author of multiple works on violent children, has claimed that the Columbine High School shooting - the 1999 massacre in which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris murdered 13 people - “never would have happened if those boys had been properly mentored in hunting and shooting”.

Meanwhile, Vittana suggests that hunting may give people a “chance to discover the outdoors in a way that cannot be experienced by watching TV or walking along a well-developed nature trail”.

Some hunters argue that the main benefit of trophy hunting is simply the entertainment factor.

Speaking on the same BBC podcast as Gove, an unnamed trophy hunter said: “To shoot an elephant is an awesome thing to do, it is a stunningly, stunningly awesome thing to do, which is why I did it.”

Ron Thomson, a hunter based in South Africa, told The Guardian in 2018 that hunting “was a great thrill to me, to be very honest”.

“Some people enjoy hunting just as much as other people abhor it. I happened to enjoy it,” he added.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

In The Spotlight If the bots click, real life may follow – or that's the idea, says Bumble

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published 17 May 24

Meryl Streep on the red carpet for the opening ceremony of the 77th edition of the Cannes Film Festival on Tuesday

Puzzles and Quizzes Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?

By The Week Staff Published 17 May 24

Detail from Michelangelo's The Punishment of Tityus (1532)

The Week Recommends New exhibition focuses on works from the final 30 years of the artist's long career

By The Week UK Published 17 May 24

A Budweiser beer stand at Fan Festival Al Bidda Park in Doha, Qatar

Speed Read Fifa has bowed to pressure and changed its policy days before the tournament starts

By Fred Kelly Published 18 November 22

Elnaz Rekabi wearing a hijab at the IFSC Climbing World Championships in 2019

Speed Read The 33-year-old broke Iran’s strict dress code for women by competing without a hijab

By Mike Starling Published 19 October 22

feature And other stories from the stranger side of life

By Chas Newkey-Burden Published 1 September 22

By The Week Staff Published 4 August 22

By Grayson Quay Published 11 December 21

Why Everyone’s Talking About Global concern for sports champion who accused former minister of sexual assault

By The Week Staff Published 22 November 21

opinion There are truths only foreigners can bring to American ears

By Samuel Goldman Published 20 October 21

By Catherine Garcia Published 19 August 21

Contact Future's experts
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 35854

Nathan Nobis
Morehouse College via Open Philosophy Press

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

“Animal testing” involves experimenting on animals to try to determine whether drugs and medical treatments are safe and effective for humans. It’s wrong and should be banned.

Why? First, and most obviously, drugs and medical procedures treat diseases, injuries, and other health problems. So, to see if a treatment works, a disease or injury must be created in animals. Understatement: this is often unpleasant. Heart attacks in dogs feel awful; bone cancers in mice are painful; pigs being burned, to test burn treatments, is agonizing. Animals living with the induced conditions is unpleasant also. And they are killed at the end of the experiments to study the treatments’ effects.

It’s now easy to see why animal testing is wrong: it violates basic principles of ethical research: it is maleficent, or harmful to the research subjects; it is not beneficial to them; it is forced on them since they don’t consent; and it is unjust in that animals are burdened with problems not their own. Research – at least with animals who are conscious, and so are able to be harmed or made worse off – is wrong for reasons that comparable human research would be wrong.

Some argue that the benefits to humans justify animal testing. But when one group benefits at the major expense of another group, that’s usually wrong. And how exactly might anyone know that humans benefit more than animals are harmed? And there is scientific evidence that animal testing often is not beneficial for humans and that clinical research, public health research, and technology-based research are more useful: see the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Americans for Medical Advancement for more information.

Some claim there are “no alternatives” to animal testing, that it is “necessary.” But there are alternatives (mentioned above) and it’s not literally necessary that anyone do it: they can refrain. But suppose someone wanted to rob a bank and needed a getaway car: there is “no alternative” to a car and so it is “necessary” for the robbery. Does that make using the car OK? No. Even if something is “necessary” and there are “no alternatives” to doing it to achieve a particular end, that doesn’t make doing the action right: the end determines that.

Finally, some say that this reasoning is all beside the point: if your child was dying and animal testing would save him or her, wouldn’t you want the testing done? Many would and that’s an understandable feeling. But it’s unlikely that animal experimentation would help their child much: other methods are likely more fruitful. And more importantly, if my child were dying and I tried to experiment on my neighbor’s children to try to save my own child, that would be wrong.

Why? Simply because those children would be harmed and treated as mere things to be used (and abused) for my and my child’s benefit, which they are not. Since those reasons apply to many animals experimented upon, animal testing is also wrong.

Using animals for scientific research is still indispensable for society as we know it

Senior Advisor Animal Ethics and Outreach, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud University

Professor, Radboud University

Associate Professor in Neuroinformatics, Radboud University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Kenya’s national airline – Kenya Airways – made headlines when it announced it would stop transporting monkeys for animal research. This followed an accidental highway crash in Pennsylvania , in the US, which involved a truck transporting monkeys that had been bred in Mauritius for laboratory experiments in the US.

Following the accident, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) US, an animal rights group, contacted Kenya Airways urging them to reconsider transporting the animals, putting forward their view that animal experimentation is a cruel industry.

Read more: The macaque monkeys of Mauritius: an invasive alien species, and a major export for research

Such an incident is indeed tragic. But if we consider the number of people who would have died without the existence of medication and novel medical technologies developed thanks to animal research, then ending animal research could lead to a more tragic outcome in the longer term.

Most countries do animal research, perhaps not very tiny countries or very poor countries. There is a nationwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics throughout the European Union, Israel, Norway, as well as in India. But animal testing for other reasons is still widely accepted.

Most of the animals used come from commercial breeders – one is Jackson Laboratory in the US. Other sources include specialist breeders and large breeding centres which can provide genetically modified animals for specific research. The animal testing facilities themselves may also rear animals.

In general, all over the world, policymakers do aim to move towards animal-free methods of scientific research and have introduced very strict regulations for animal research.

Scientists and policymakers share the long-term goal of reducing animal use in scientific research and where possible eventually even stopping it. It’s an ambitious goal. For this to happen, animal-free methods need to be developed and validated before they can become a new standard.

Animal-free innovations have been developed for some areas of biomedical research, such as toxicology . However, most parties recognise that at present, not all research questions can be answered using only animal-free methods.

Based on decades of doing research on the human brain, which involves using animals, to us it’s clear that – for the foreseeable future – there remains a crucial need for animal models to understand health and disease and to develop medicines.

Unique knowledge

It is animal research that provides researchers with unique knowledge about how humans and animals function. Perhaps more than in any other field of biomedical research, complete living animals are needed to understand brain function, behaviour and cognition.

Behaviour and cognition, the final outputs of a brain organ, cannot be mimicked using any existing animal-free technologies. We currently simply do not understand the brain well enough to make animal-free solutions.

Another striking, very recent example that showed the current need for animal research is the COVID-19 pandemic . The way out of the pandemic required the development of a functioning vaccine. Researchers amazed the world when they made targeted vaccines available within one year. This, however, has relied greatly on the use of animals for testing the efficacy and safety of the vaccine.

A key fact that remains often invisible is that the rules and regulations for conducting animal research are, in comparison, perhaps even stricter and more regulated, by for example the Animal Welfare act in the US and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in Europe. Than, for example, in the food and entertainment industry, although regulations are in place here too such as governmental rules for the treatment of animals in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

Should it be banned?

In the world as we know it today, animal research is still generally accepted as part of society. There are many important reasons why laboratory animal research is still needed:

To learn about biological processes in animals and humans.

To learn about the cause of diseases.

To develop new treatments and vaccines and evaluate their effects.

To develop methods that can prevent disease both in animals and humans.

To develop methods for the management of animals such as pests but also for the conservation of endangered species.

Of course many, animal researchers included, are hopeful that one day animal experiments will no longer be necessary to achieve the much needed scientific outcomes. However, the situation is that for many research questions related to human and animal health we still need animals.

As long as we cannot replace animals, there should be more focus on transparency and animal welfare, to benefit the animals as well as science. Awareness and financial support of this at the governmental level is key to enable animal researchers to always strive for the highest level of animal welfare possible.

Scientific research
Science and innovation for development

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Share full article

Opinion Guest Essay

Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost

Credit... Photographs by Peter Fisher for The New York Times

Supported by

By Emma Marris

Ms. Marris is an environmental writer and the author of the forthcoming book “Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.”

June 11, 2021

After being captives of the pandemic for more than a year, we have begun experiencing the pleasures of simple outings: dining al fresco, shopping with a friend, taking a stroll through the zoo. As we snap a selfie by the sea lions for the first time in so long, it seems worth asking, after our collective ordeal, whether our pleasure in seeing wild animals up close is worth the price of their captivity.

Throughout history, men have accumulated large and fierce animals to advertise their might and prestige. Power-mad men from Henry III to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday to the drug kingpin Pablo Escobar to Charlemagne all tried to underscore their strength by keeping terrifying beasts captive. William Randolph Hearst created his own private zoo with lions, tigers, leopards and more at Hearst Castle. It is these boastful collections of animals, these autocratic menageries, from which the modern zoo, with its didactic plaques and $15 hot dogs, springs.

The forerunners of the modern zoo, open to the public and grounded in science, took shape in the 19th century. Public zoos sprang up across Europe, many modeled on the London Zoo in Regent’s Park. Ostensibly places for genteel amusement and edification, zoos expanded beyond big and fearsome animals to include reptile houses, aviaries and insectariums. Living collections were often presented in taxonomic order, with various species of the same family grouped together, for comparative study.

The first zoos housed animals behind metal bars in spartan cages. But relatively early in their evolution, a German exotic animal importer named Carl Hagenbeck changed the way wild animals were exhibited. In his Animal Park, which opened in 1907 in Hamburg, he designed cages that didn’t look like cages, using moats and artfully arranged rock walls to invisibly pen animals. By designing these enclosures so that many animals could be seen at once, without any bars or walls in the visitors’ lines of sight, he created an immersive panorama, in which the fact of captivity was supplanted by the illusion of being in nature.

Mr. Hagenbeck’s model was widely influential. Increasingly, animals were presented with the distasteful fact of their imprisonment visually elided. Zoos shifted just slightly from overt demonstrations of mastery over beasts to a narrative of benevolent protection of individual animals. From there, it was an easy leap to protecting animal species.

The “educational day out” model of zoos endured until the late 20th century, when zoos began actively rebranding themselves as serious contributors to conservation. Zoo animals, this new narrative went, function as backup populations for wild animals under threat, as well as “ambassadors” for their species, teaching humans and motivating them to care about wildlife. This conservation focus “ must be a key component ” for institutions that want to be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that sets standards and policies for facilities in the United States and 12 other countries.

This is the image of the zoo I grew up with: the unambiguously good civic institution that lovingly cared for animals both on its grounds and, somehow, vaguely, in their wild habitats. A few zoos are famous for their conservation work. Four of the zoos and the aquarium in New York City, for instance, are managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society, which is involved in conservation efforts around the world. But this is not the norm.

While researching my book on the ethics of human interactions with wild species, “Wild Souls,” I examined how, exactly, zoos contribute to the conservation of wild animals.

A.Z.A. facilities report spending approximately $231 million annually on conservation projects. For comparison, in 2018, they spent $4.9 billion on operations and construction. I find one statistic particularly telling about their priorities: A 2018 analysis of the scientific papers produced by association members between 1993 and 2013 showed that just about 7 percent of them annually were classified as being about “biodiversity conservation.”

Zoos accredited by the A.Z.A. or the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria have studbooks and genetic pedigrees and carefully breed their animals as if they might be called upon at any moment to release them, like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark, into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come.

There are a few exceptions. The Arabian oryx, an antelope native to the Arabian Peninsula, went extinct in the wild in the 1970s and then was reintroduced into the wild from zoo populations. The California condor breeding program, which almost certainly saved the species from extinction, includes five zoos as active partners. Black-footed ferrets and red wolves in the United States and golden lion tamarins in Brazil — all endangered, as well — have been bred at zoos for reintroduction into the wild. An estimated 20 red wolves are all that remain in the wild.

The A.Z.A. says that its members host “more than 50 reintroduction programs for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.” Nevertheless, a vast majority of zoo animals (there are 800,000 animals of 6,000 species in the A.Z.A.’s zoos alone ) will spend their whole lives in captivity, either dying of old age after a lifetime of display or by being culled as “surplus.”

The practice of killing “surplus” animals is kept quiet by zoos, but it happens, especially in Europe. In 2014, the director of the E.A.Z.A. at the time estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are euthanized in European zoos each year. (The culling of mammals specifically in E.A.Z.A. zoos is “usually not more than 200 animals per year,” the organization said.) Early in the pandemic, the Neumünster Zoo in northern Germany coolly announced an emergency plan to cope with lost revenue by feeding some animals to other animals, compressing the food chain at the zoo like an accordion, until in the worst-case scenario, only Vitus, a polar bear, would be left standing. The A.Z.A.’s policies allow for the euthanasia of animals, but the president of the association, Dan Ashe, told me, “it’s very rarely employed” by his member institutions.

Mr. Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, suggested that learning how to breed animals contributes to conservation in the long term, even if very few animals are being released now. A day may come, he said, when we need to breed elephants or tigers or polar bears in captivity to save them from extinction. “If you don’t have people that know how to care for them, know how to breed them successfully, know how to keep them in environments where their social and psychological needs can be met, then you won’t be able to do that,” he said.

The other argument zoos commonly make is that they educate the public about animals and develop in people a conservation ethic. Having seen a majestic leopard in the zoo, the visitor becomes more willing to pay for its conservation or vote for policies that will preserve it in the wild. What Mr. Ashe wants visitors to experience when they look at the animals is a “sense of empathy for the individual animal, as well as the wild populations of that animal.”

I do not doubt that some people had their passion for a particular species, or wildlife in general, sparked by zoo experiences. I’ve heard and read some of their stories. I once overheard two schoolchildren at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington confess to each other that they had assumed that elephants were mythical animals like unicorns before seeing them in the flesh. I remember well the awe and joy on their faces, 15 years later. I’d like to think these kids, now in their early 20s, are working for a conservation organization somewhere. But there’s no unambiguous evidence that zoos are making visitors care more about conservation or take any action to support it. After all, more than 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide every year, and biodiversity is still in decline.

In a 2011 study , researchers quizzed visitors at the Cleveland, Bronx, Prospect Park and Central Park zoos about their level of environmental concern and what they thought about the animals. Those who reported “a sense of connection to the animals at the zoo” also correlated positively with general environmental concern. On the other hand, the researchers reported, “there were no significant differences in survey responses before entering an exhibit compared with those obtained as visitors were exiting.”

A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.”

The researchers also spied on hundreds of visitors’ conversations at the Bronx Zoo, the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. They found that only 27 percent of people bothered to read the signs at exhibits. More than 6,000 comments made by the visitors were recorded, nearly half of which were “purely descriptive statements that asserted a fact about the exhibit or the animal.” The researchers wrote , “In all the statements collected, no one volunteered information that would lead us to believe that they had an intention to advocate for protection of the animal or an intention to change their own behavior.”

People don’t go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the 19th century: to be entertained.

A fine day out with the family might itself be justification enough for the existence of zoos if the zoo animals are all happy to be there. Alas, there’s plenty of heartbreaking evidence that many are not.

In many modern zoos, animals are well cared for, healthy and probably, for many species, content. Zookeepers are not mustache-twirling villains. They are kind people, bonded to their charges and immersed in the culture of the zoo, in which they are the good guys.

But many animals clearly show us that they do not enjoy captivity. When confined they rock, pull their hair and engage in other tics. Captive tigers pace back and forth, and in a 2014 study, researchers found that “the time devoted to pacing by a species in captivity is best predicted by the daily distances traveled in nature by the wild specimens.” It is almost as if they feel driven to patrol their territory, to hunt, to move, to walk a certain number of steps, as if they have a Fitbit in their brains.

The researchers divided the odd behaviors of captive animals into two categories: “impulsive/compulsive behaviors,” including coprophagy (eating feces), regurgitation, self-biting and mutilation, exaggerated aggressiveness and infanticide, and “stereotypies,” which are endlessly repeated movements. Elephants bob their heads over and over. Chimps pull out their own hair. Giraffes endlessly flick their tongues. Bears and cats pace. Some studies have shown that as many as 80 percent of zoo carnivores, 64 percent of zoo chimps and 85 percent of zoo elephants have displayed compulsive behaviors or stereotypies.

Elephants are particularly unhappy in zoos, given their great size, social nature and cognitive complexity. Many suffer from arthritis and other joint problems from standing on hard surfaces; elephants kept alone become desperately lonely; and all zoo elephants suffer mentally from being cooped up in tiny yards while their free-ranging cousins walk up to 50 miles a day. Zoo elephants tend to die young. At least 20 zoos in the United States have already ended their elephant exhibits in part because of ethical concerns about keeping the species captive.

Many zoos use Prozac and other psychoactive drugs on at least some of their animals to deal with the mental effects of captivity. The Los Angeles Zoo has used Celexa, an antidepressant, to control aggression in one of its chimps. Gus, a polar bear at the Central Park Zoo, was given Prozac as part of an attempt to stop him from swimming endless figure-eight laps in his tiny pool. The Toledo Zoo has dosed zebras and wildebeest with the antipsychotic haloperidol to keep them calm and has put an orangutan on Prozac. When a female gorilla named Johari kept fighting off the male she was placed with, the zoo dosed her with Prozac until she allowed him to mate with her. A 2000 survey of U.S. and Canadian zoos found that nearly half of respondents were giving their gorillas Haldol, Valium or another psychopharmaceutical drug.

Some zoo animals try to escape. Jason Hribal’s 2010 book, “Fear of the Animal Planet,” chronicles dozens of attempts. Elephants figure prominently in his book, in part because they are so big that when they escape it generally makes the news.

Mr. Hribal documented many stories of elephants making a run for it — in one case repairing to a nearby woods with a pond for a mud bath. He also found many examples of zoo elephants hurting or killing their keepers and evidence that zoos routinely downplayed or even lied about those incidents.

Elephants aren’t the only species that try to flee a zoo life. Tatiana the tiger, kept in the San Francisco Zoo, snapped one day in 2007 after three teenage boys had been taunting her. She somehow got over the 12-foot wall surrounding her 1,000-square-foot enclosure and attacked one of the teenagers, killing him. The others ran, and she pursued them, ignoring all other humans in her path. When she caught up with the boys at the cafe, she mauled them before she was shot to death by the police. Investigators found sticks and pine cones inside the exhibit, most likely thrown by the boys.

Apes are excellent at escaping. Little Joe, a gorilla, escaped from the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston twice in 2003. At the Los Angeles Zoo, a gorilla named Evelyn escaped seven times in 20 years. Apes are known for picking locks and keeping a beady eye on their captors, waiting for the day someone forgets to lock the door. An orangutan at the Omaha Zoo kept wire for lock-picking hidden in his mouth. A gorilla named Togo at the Toledo Zoo used his incredible strength to bend the bars of his cage. When the zoo replaced the bars with thick glass, he started methodically removing the putty holding it in. In the 1980s, a group of orangutans escaped several times at the San Diego Zoo. In one escape, they worked together: One held a mop handle steady while her sister climbed it to freedom. Another time, one of the orangutans, Kumang, learned how to use sticks to ground the current in the electrical wire around her enclosure. She could then climb the wire without being shocked. It is impossible to read these stories without concluding that these animals wanted out .

“I don’t see any problem with holding animals for display,” Mr. Ashe told me. “People assume that because an animal can move great distances that they would choose to do that.” If they have everything they need nearby, he argued, they would be happy with smaller territories. And it is true that the territory size of an animal like a wolf depends greatly on the density of resources and other wolves. But then there’s the pacing, the rocking. I pointed out that we can’t ask animals whether they are happy with their enclosure size. “That’s true,” he said. “There is always that element of choice that gets removed from them in a captive environment. That’s undeniable.” His justification was philosophical. In the end, he said, “we live with our own constraints.” He added, “We are all captive in some regards to social and ethical and religious and other constraints on our life and our activities.”

What if zoos stopped breeding all their animals, with the possible exception of any endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild? What if they sent all the animals that need really large areas or lots of freedom and socialization to refuges? With their apes, elephants, big cats, and other large and smart species gone, they could expand enclosures for the rest of the animals, concentrating on keeping them lavishly happy until their natural deaths. Eventually, the only animals on display would be a few ancient holdovers from the old menageries, animals in active conservation breeding programs and perhaps a few rescues.

Such zoos might even be merged with sanctuaries, places that take wild animals that because of injury or a lifetime of captivity cannot live in the wild. Existing refuges often do allow visitors, but their facilities are really arranged for the animals, not for the people. These refuge-zoos could become places where animals live. Display would be incidental.

Such a transformation might free up some space. What could these zoos do with it, besides enlarging enclosures? As an avid fan of botanical gardens, I humbly suggest that as the captive animals retire and die off without being replaced, these biodiversity-worshiping institutions devote more and more space to the wonderful world of plants. Properly curated and interpreted, a well-run garden can be a site for a rewarding “outing with friends or family,” a source of education for the 27 percent of people who read signs and a point of civic pride.

I’ve spent many memorable days in botanical gardens, completely swept away by the beauty of the design as well as the unending wonder of evolution — and there’s no uneasiness or guilt. When there’s a surplus, you can just have a plant sale.

Emma Marris is an environmental writer and the author of the forthcoming book “Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.”

Photographs by Peter Fisher. Mr. Fisher is a photographer based in New York.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

IMAGES

Why Animal Huntings Should Be Banned
Should Fox hunting be banned Essay Example
Should animal hunting be banned Free Essay Example
All the animal hunting should be banned essay
hunting should be illegal
Free Hunting Should Be Banned Essay Examples and Topic Ideas

VIDEO

Animal Ethics
10 Dogs You NEVER Knew Were Banned Worldwide in 2024
Write an essay on Wildlife
Why should animal hunting be banned? (PERSUASIVE SPEECH~ELC590)
Abolition of Hunting
African Wildlife In Action! The God Give Strength Grant Gazelle To Take Down Cheetah With Horns

COMMENTS

Should animal hunting be banned Free Essay Example
13060. Should Animal Hunting Be Banned? I personally think animal hunting should be banned because hunters are one of the main reasons why animals suffer, are extinct, and are endangered. Because of hunting animals are becoming extinct, and with arsenal of rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, handguns, bows and arrows, hunters kill more than 200 ...
The Main Arguments for and Against Hunting
The killing of wild animals for food is a different story. Though it was, at one time, a way of life and necessary for survival, today, hunting is a controversial topic because it is frequently ...
Why 'Sport' Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary
Why 'Sport' Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary. Although it was a crucial part of humans' survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. 1 Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the ...
The Ethical Debate: Why Hunting Should not Be Banned
In conclusion, the debate surrounding hunting is a nuanced and multifaceted one, with ethical, cultural, and conservation considerations at play. While it is crucial to address concerns about animal welfare and ecosystem preservation, a complete ban on hunting may not be the most effective solution. Instead, a balanced approach that includes ...
The Ethics of Hunting: Debating the Pros and Cons
The Ethics of Hunting: Debating the Pros and Cons. 12 June, 2023. Hunting has been a part of human life since ancient times. While it used to be essential for survival, nowadays, hunting is mostly done as a recreational activity. However, hunting has also been a topic of controversy and debate for decades, especially when it comes to its ethics.
Hunting Should Be Banned Essay
Buzzle: Hunting Pros and Cons. Last but never least, sport hunting should be banned due to the fact that it causes the endanger and extinction of animal species. "One glaring negative of hunting for sport is over hunting. This occurs when hunters kill too many of a species, threatening their survival." (Life123).
How killing wildlife in the United States became a game
The first documented wildlife-killing contest in the U.S. is believed to have been held by a group of ranchers in Chandler, Arizona, in 1957. The most lucrative of today's contests is the West ...
should hunting be banned essay
These include Botswana and Costa Rica. Still, two out of 196 countries is not enough to help save animals. Banning hunting is an activity that needs to occur all over the world. Hunting should be made illegal worldwide due to the negative influence it impacts on children, its use as a sport and hobby, and the extinction of species it causes.
Persuasive Essay : Why Hunting Should Be Banned?
Hunting is also controlled by the federal government by controlling the animal populations, "A federal court has lifted the endangered species protection for wolves in the state.". This shows that the sport is heavily controlled. Although, hunting does. Free Essay: Animals roamed the Earth long before we even were brought to existence.
Trophy hunting
Indeed, research on trophy hunting does show that it can produce substantial financial benefits, is likely to be supported by local communities, and can be associated with conservation gains. But ...
Free Essay: Should animal hunting be banned
I personally think animal hunting should be banned because hunters are one of the main reasons why animals suffer, are extinct, and are endangered. Because of hunting animals are becoming extinct, and with arsenal of rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, handguns, bows and arrows, hunters kill more than 200 million animals yearly.
Op-Ed
That cannot be said of hunting since key participants-the nonhuman targets of the human participants-do not know they are participating and do not choose to do so. They do not know the object is to kill them or the rules or regulations that govern hunting. Animals may sense danger, but that is a far cry from knowing they are participating in a ...
Why Animal Huntings Should Be Banned
1 of 3. Download now. Why Animal Huntings Should Be Banned. 1. Paragraph 1: • About my self and what is my speech Paragraph 2: • Introduction of hunting. • Has been "tradition" since the Ice Age. • Why animal hunting should be banned. Paragraph 3: • With an arsenal of rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, handguns, bows and arrows ...
Why Animals Sports Should Be Banned
First of all, animals should not be treated as if they were objects; all forms of sport and entertainment that exploit animals where they suffer should be banned. For example, one of the main victims of exploitation in sports activities are horses and dogs, in most cases. According to the article "Greyhound Racing And Drugs" (Karol ...
Trophy hunting: the arguments for and against
"The number of animals killed by trophy hunters is staggering", said the letter, which noted that "in total, 1.7 million trophies were legally traded worldwide between 2004-14, around ...
Essay on Hunting
Essay on Hunting: Since the beginning of history, during the stone age period man hunted animals for food to live and to utilize other parts for clothing and other daily needs . But today in the modern world men still hunt animals for food but also for the sake of interest and to show off. ... Hunting of animals should be banned as it disturbs ...
8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned
Since those reasons apply to many animals experimented upon, animal testing is also wrong. This page titled 8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned is shared under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Nathan Nobis ( Open Philosophy Press ) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the ...
Recreational Hunting Should Be Banned
Recreational Hunting Should Be Banned. Good Essays. 2103 Words. 9 Pages. Open Document. People hunt wild animals for a number of different reasons including to control animal populations, reduce invasive animal species, and also simply for recreation. Recreational hunting is one of the most long-debated controversial issues in modern society.
Persuasive Essay: Should Trophy Hunting Be Banned?
Although some countries have banned trophy hunting, they continue to allow "canned hunting" in which animals are bred to be hunted.Big game hunting takes a turn for the worse when it becomes canned hunting, or when it can be linked to poaching. People all over the world are voicing their opinion on the sport, legal or illegal.
Using animals for scientific research is still indispensable for
In the world as we know it today, animal research is still generally accepted as part of society. There are many important reasons why laboratory animal research is still needed: To learn about ...
Opinion
In many modern zoos, animals are well cared for, healthy and probably, for many species, content. Zookeepers are not mustache-twirling villains. They are kind people, bonded to their charges and ...
Hunting Should Not Be Banned
Buzzle: Hunting Pros and Cons. Last but never least, sport hunting should be banned due to the fact that it causes the endanger and extinction of animal species. "One glaring negative of hunting for sport is over hunting. This occurs when hunters kill too many of a species, threatening their survival." (Life123).
Why Animal Testing should be Banned
It also contains many other alternatives such as cell culture, tissue culture, computer models which can easily replace testing on animals. There is a several reasons which shows that animal testing should be banned. First and the foremost reason is that animal suffers a lot from these experimentation as scientist give them injuries without ...