The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should we stop hunting Lions?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 91720
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I think we should stop hunting lions because the population of lions was really high in the 1990-1950 (100,000 to 400,000).Now there is about 16,500 to 47,000 lions left in the wild. Lions don't do anything to us, they just want to avoid us but we provoke them and it get them angry and they start killing people because of us provoking them. We kill them for no reason sometimes just for fun or just to keeps it's head as a trophy.

Heard about Cecil the Lion, Scientist were studying that Lion until a hunter shot him.

Here is a website on why we should stop hunting lions ( I using this to help me with my argument):


Tell the International Union for Conservation of Nature that vulnerable species shouldn't be allowed in game hunts.

Many people mistakenly and understandably think that lions are considered an endangered species. Lions have become extinct in 26 countries. Only seven countries " Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe " are believed to contain more than 1,000 lions each. Despite this fact, they are still only classified as a "vulnerable species" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the governing body that determines such categorizations, and by extension, whether certain protections are put in place for a species.

Between 1999 and 2008, 64% of the 5,663 lions that were killed in the African wild for sport ended up as trophies back in the United States. While arguments that the hefty fees associated with the permits to hunt these magnificent creatures can offset the costs of conservation efforts, the risk of this leading to eventual extinction is a real threat. Because prime male lions are often the most coveted trophies, the process places entire prides at risk by disrupting the species´┐Ż complex social structure. Prime male lions are the primary protectors of females and cubs, and a decrease in their population places the rest of the family in a truly vulnerable position. Killing the strongest and most fit lions also removes the best genes from the pool, weakening the species as a whole.
Debate Round No. 1


Lions have disappeared from North Africa and Southwest Asia in historic times.The lion is a vulnerable species, having seen a major population decline in its African range of 30"50% per two decades during the second half of the twentieth century.[2] Lion populations are untenable outside designated reserves and national parks. Although the cause of the decline is not fully understood, habitat loss and conflicts with humans are currently the greatest causes of concern. Within Africa, the West African lion population is particularly endangered.


The death of a celebrity often makes the headlines, but it is less common that the death of wild animal has the same effect. However, it appears that the entire world has mourned the loss of Cecil the lion, killed on a private game reserve bordering a national park in Zimbabwe. But is the recent barrage of attacks on trophy hunting, and the U.S. dentist who killed Cecil, justified?

Let's be clear: Cecil was killed illegally, which we don't condone. The landowner who allowed the hunt on his reserve without the necessary permit should face the justice system. But this one bad apple should not tarnish an entire industry.
Legally hunting lions in Zimbabwe is highly regulated: it requires various permits and licenses from the client, professional hunter and hunting reserve owner. National quotas aim to ensure sustainable off-take of the species and, in western Zimbabwe, lions are only killed once they have reached a certain age to make sure they've had the chance to pass their genes on. As a result, lion populations in Zimbabwe are either stable or increasing.
So if hunts are conducted following these rules, can trophy hunting really help conserve lions? Some argue that even if this were the case, the practise still shouldn't be allowed because it involves killing a charismatic and threatened animal for fun. Opponents suggest that non-lethal alternatives such as photographic tourism should be the main way in which conservation is funded. But there are a number of problems with this argument.
Tourism isn't the answer
Hunters are willing to go to remote and unstable areas that most photographic tourists are unwilling to venture into. Far more photographic tourists would have to travel to Africa than hunters to make up the same level of revenue, so the carbon footprint from all that air travel would surely have a significant environmental impact. It should also be noted that the potential for nature tourism is not equally distributed, with the industry often focused only around a few locations. This leaves other regions without access to tourism revenue. Oh, and let's not forget that wildlife reserves can also kill lions.
If the goal is to preserve populations and species (as opposed to the welfare of individual animals), countries with healthy wildlife populations should be able to use their natural resources to cover the costs of management. This is particularly the case in countries such as Zimbabwe, one of the poorest places in the world.
How hunting helps
Zimbabwe has a tradition of using trophy hunting to promote wildlife conservation. Through the CAMPFIRE program, which ran from 1989 to 2001, more than $20m was given to participating communities, 89% of which came from sports hunting. In more recent times, populations of elephants and other large herbivores have been shown to benefit from trophy hunting.
Cecil the lion's death renews calls for hunting ban

Cecil the lion's death renews calls for hunting ban 04:24
Zimbabwean trophy hunting generates roughly $16m of revenue annually. While it has been rightly pointed out that only 3% of this goes towards local communities, the ethical implications of removing this money without a clear alternative need to be examined.
The economic impact of trophy hunting in comparison to tourism as a whole may not be huge, but what is the alternative if it is made illegal? Zambia banned trophy hunting of big cats in 2013, only to reverse it earlier this year because the government needed the money to fund conservation.
Conservation costs money -- so does the damage done by lions killing livestock. It is not clear whether photographic tourism alone could cover these financial burdens.
Improving the situation
If trophy hunting is to continue, how can we make it more sustainable? One study suggested we need to enforce age restrictions on trophy animals throughout the entire country , improve monitoring, change quotas over time depending on environmental conditions and ensure lion hunts are at least 21 days long.
Another study found that trophy hunting can be beneficial to lion conservation when the income is shared with locals who live with this species (and have to deal with the negative consequences of their presence).
While it is sad that we sometimes have to resort to killing animals for conservation, let's not allow emotions to overtake our arguments. Conservation is a complex, difficult industry and needs all the financial help it can get: we are after all living through the sixth mass extinction. How much money will that take to fix?
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.