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

Stop Trophy Hunting

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2021 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 127765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




We should vote to stop trophy hunting. (NOTE: If you see an asterisk (*) that means that the information is cited at the bottom of this argument so you can scroll down to see where I got this information).

Why trophy hunting is unnecessary:

Trophy hunting is when an animal is killed for their teeth, Their pelt, Their tusk, Etc. It's cruel because the killing isn't necessary. (Most people don't eat the killed animal. Most trophy hunting tend to be the multi-millionaires because they can pay to fly across the world and pay for the guns, Meaning that they should be able to pay for food, And don't need to eat the animal that they kill).

Why trophy hunt in inhumane:

Also, The killings sometimes aren't very humane. For example, Some amateur hunters who try to go hunting try to take down an elephant. However, After many shots all over the body, They still can't take an elephant down. So, Not only is the elephant going through this experience so that 1 person can have 1 trophy, They're being tortured until they die.

Also, There are such thing as 'canned hunts. ' Canned hunts are specifically designed for amateurs but is completely unfair to the animal. Animals are trapped in small cells their whole life, Only to be cornered before shot. *

Don't forget how some wolves are killed. Baby pups wolf pups are taken away from their parents by hunters and tied to a stake, The hunter lurking nearby. If you were a mother wolf, And you saw your pup - your child! - tied up onto a stake, Then you would want to save them. ** Even if you know that the hunter is nearby - for you can see the hunter - then you would want to save your pups. Any wolf would. Most humans would! However, Once the wolf approaches, The whole family is shot down. Even if the wolves knew that this fate might happen, They have a fast and strong love for their pups. They would want to save them. Wouldn't you? Taking advantage of this love should be outlawed. How could you do something like that?

If you think that's all of the inhumane horrors of trophy hunting, Then you're wrong. There is also wildlife killing contests: contests where the goal is to kill as many animals as you can. Yes. Animals all in a forest - innocent animals - not knowing that them, Their friends, Their family, Their food, The predators, Are going to be shot. Not knowing that their bodies are going to be stuffed and put up on walls. Not knowing that their killers are going to be rewarded with cash and bombarded with prizes for killing them. ***

Wildlife killing contests are also bad for the environment, Which brings us to, Then environmental tolls of trophy hunting.

Environmental Problems:

Not only is trophy hunting unethical and cruel, There are environmental problems to trophy hunting. Though some might argue that some animal populations are high and need to be killed off by trophy hunters, Then that's not true. Most likely the reason that they're high is because their predator numbers are low. If you help the predators recover from their low numbers, Then the food chain would stabilize.

Let's say you're a commonly trophy hunted animal, And you loose your mate do to trophy hunting. You can't reproduce to have babies. But when you're commonly trophy hunted, Then other animals of your species won't be able to reproduce. Eventually, You can go extinct or have your numbers greatly decrease. **** Your predators wouldn't have enough to eat, And then they'll go extinct. For example, If your predator was a coyote, Then they'd die. However, Coyotes also eat beavers, (though they can't rely on beavers %100 of the time to have a stable diet - why else would they have eat other animals, Such as mice? ) and rely on you to support the other half of their diet, With them gone, Then the population of beavers would increase. Meaning more dams. Meaning more flooding. Humans could kill off the beavers. However, That would be really cruel. It's very inhumane to kill every animal on the face of the planet so that a couple hunters can get a couple of trophies. That brings us to our next issue: How Trophy Hunting Negatively Effects of the Economy.

Impacts to the Economy:

Sure, Trophy hunting is expensive and the money to travel to different countries to kill their animals is helping the country get money. However, There are many people who go to a country to visit the wildlife - NOT to kill it. Many animal lovers go to Africa to visit all types of interesting wildlife. Cheetahs. . . Giraffes. . . Lions. . . However, When trophy hunters kill the animals, Then the people interested in wildlife have less animals to see. So they don't go to the places where they would normally visit. This can lower the amount of money that countries have. And this is a real problem. One time, A governor killed a wolf from Yellowstone. Though he had trapped the wolf outside Yellowstone and the killing was 'technically' legal, No killing should be legal, And many tourists in Yellowstone was outraged. ***** This, Brings us to another trophy hunting topic, The fact that part of the government supports it and sometimes does it.

The Government and Trophy Hunting:

Many government official don't like trophy hunting. However, There are many that do. However, That never makes trophy hunting right. Just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's okay. Donald Trump Jr. Trophy hunted****** and does that make the killing okay? No! No killing should be okay.

Not only does trophy hunting hurt animals, It impacts the environment and the economy. Do we want to sacrifice all of that just so that a couple of trophy hunters can have fun? If so, Then I'm starting to doubt human empathy and kindness for animals.

Some might say that animals don't have feelings. However, They do. ******* And it also makes sense: If we're able to have feelings, Why not other animals?


*https://www. Humanesociety. Org/resources/captive-hunts-fact-sheet
**Wolf Nation by Brenda Peterson
***https://www. Humanesociety. Org/wildlifekillingcontests
****https://prezi. Com/npxm7tnuxld6/how-hunting-affects-the-food-web/
*****https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3xMpPW16WnY
******https://blog. Humanesociety. Org/2020/06/trump-jr-s-argali-trophy-hunt-in-mongolia-cost-american-taxpayers-77000. Html
*******https://www. Nationalgeographic. Com/animals/article/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science


Hello, I am looking forwards to this discission.

I will try to stick to your arguments as best as possible but I think for simplification we can surmize it into three fundamental arguments. If you take an issue with this framing let me know and we can figure something else out.

Argument 1. The ethics of taking animal life.

Argument 2. The economic implications of trophy hunting.

Argument 3. Animals hold identical value to people.

Ok so in response to argument 1. Let us first make the distinction that if we consider animal life posessing moral value, That all animal life be considered equal. Ie the life of an elephant, Buffalo, Lion or other majestic animal hold no greater value than the life of a rat, Pigeon or crab. If you disagree with this fundamental distinction, Object here and we can discuss. If not, Then we can conclude that a trophy hunter paying $100000 dollars to hunt a wildebeest is ethicly superior to paying $10 for a package of bacon. Secondly most death in nature is not humane, Animals either get eaten, Starve or are killed by other animals ridiculously more often than dying quietly in their bed. So the idea that not shooting an animal will allow them to die in a humane manner is incorrect.

In response to argument 2. Trophy hunting is responsible for the preservation of endangered species. The vast majority of funding used to run wildlife preserves in places like Africa comes from the revenue generated by trophy hunting. Empiracle data shows that the implementation of trophy hunting actually increased the population of endangered rhinos from less than 100 to over 11000 in zimbabwe. The economic danger for rare animals comes from illegal poaching not sanctioned trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is extremely regulated by national conservation guidleines to be done in a manner that wilp not allow the population to decrease, I think youre drastically underestimating the amount of regulation that goes into trophy hunting and hunting in general.

Argument 3. Animals are as valuable as people. Im making this assumption based on your two examples of placeing us in the shoes of an animal. If you don't hold this belief I apologize and I will simply say they aren't. We can discuss if you disagree.

As I said, I look forward to talking with you.

https://www. Conservationmagazine. Org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
Debate Round No. 1


(NOTE: If you see an asterisk (*) that means that the information is cited at the bottom of this argument so you can scroll down to see where I got this information).

Response to Rebuttals in the Last Round:

In response to your first statement in your last round, I do believe that all animals should be treated equally. However, Buying a package of bacon at the grocery store is different than killing a wildebeest. Even though both involve an animal dying, They are two different things with one separate distinction: One is used to eat. The other is used to be killed for fun.

Another thing that you mentioned is that death in nature isn't always humane. However, Death in nature either involves an animal being killed by another for food, Or an animal getting ill, Or an animal drowning, Falling, Starving, Etc. I wouldn't call death in nature inhumane. If you're killing inhumanely, That means that you are creating a torturous time for another, And killing them slowly and painfully. Animals don't kill their food inhumanely. They need to eat quickly, And so they make the death as quick as possible so they can eat their food. However, With trophy hunting the hunters tend to have all day. Though creating an inhumane death might be accidental by the trophy hunter (like trying to kill a large mammal but multiple shots still doesn't bring it down), It still doesn't make it right. You decided to go on the trophy hunting expedition in the first place. You also mentioned the topic of starvation. Starvation can be painful, But the animal still has more of a chance than it does when being trophy hunted. With trophy hunting, The animal can't run away - a gun is long ranged. You can't try to attack - you are already hurt by the gun and you are wounded and attacking won't help. But with starvation, You have multiple chances to get food before you are killed.

To answer your question from round 1, I do believe that animals are as valuable as people. Though I rather save one of my human family members rather than save an animal, That's because I know them and I have strong ties to them. That doesn't mean I lack sympathy for the animal. A Harvard professor researched this issue, And came back with roughly the same results. * And even if animals aren't valuable as humans - note that I don't believe in this point of view - that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them and to rid them from their family, And bring them into the hands of death.

You also referred to trophy hunting helping conservation. Though it can fund wildlife preserves, You can fund wildlife preserves without killing an animal. I know that trophy hunting helped the rhino population, And I interested to know if there are any other situations like that. But as I said in the 1st round: A lot of revenue comes from people wanting to visit the animals. I would love to visit a lion, Not to shoot it, But to take a picture. That also brings us to a topic that I would like to present: The ethicalness of trophy hunting.

The Ethical Downsides to Trophy Hunting:

I don't think that trophy hunting is okay. Animals have lives, Too. They have family. They have things that they care for. And to take that all away from them - plus the gift of the heartbeat - just so you can have fund and hang their body up on the wall can't be right.

Let's say that a wolf is shot. 1 hunter gets a trophy. More than one wolf watcher if disappointed and/or outraged. The wolf is gone. The wolf's pack is mourning with sad, Heart wrenching howls. ** All of that, And only one person benefits: the trophy hunter.

We should start questioning the ethicalness to trophy hunting. We need to help the animals by stopping trophy hunting.


*https://news. Harvard. Edu/gazette/story/2019/06/harvard-professor-animals-are-just-as-important-as-people/
**Running with the Wolves by Jim and Jamie Dutcher


So how is buying bacon supporting factory farming better than killing a wildebeest to support conservation?

Thats absolutely not true. Plenty of animals kill for fun. Chimps have gang wars, Male bears kill bear cubs to allow the female to mate, Lions have territory disputes, Dolphins kill smaller fish for fun. Heres 11 examples. Https://wildlifeinformer. Com/animals-that-kill-for-fun/

If youd rather save a human life than an animal life, That means you value human life more. As you should because human life is more valuable. It does actually give us that right. As humans are more valuable we are free to have dominion over the animal kingdom as food, Beasts of burden, Research and recreation.

Unfortunately people don't spend 350k to take pictures of a lion. If they did, Youd have a point. Yes, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia have all increased their elephant populations as a direct result of trophy hunting. Countries that ban in like kenya see a massive influx of poaching that decimates the population.

https://www. Nrahlf. Org/articles/2016/8/12/world-elephant-day-shows-trophy-hunting-as-solution-to-elephant-poaching/

It can be right if it helps save a species from extinction, Which is what its doing.

Your analogy isnt really accurate. Its more like we have 50 wolves and we issue 5 wolf tags per year. The money hunters pay for the tags goes toward the remaining 45 wolves so that next year we can have 70 instead of 50. All the while the photographer can take pictures of the 45 remaining wolves. If the photographer is outraged by that concept, Id say theyre more concerned with appearing outraged than preserving the species.
Debate Round No. 2


I say thanks for debating, Since this is the last debate session!

In your last debate, You mentioned trophy hunting supporting conservation. However, That's not true. In fact, Most of the money that goes to conservation doesn't come from trophy hunting. *

I also read a comment by @Ihsieman about animals being eaten alive. That is true for some animals, Such as dolphins, Who eat fish alive. However, Wolves kill before they eat their prey. Why? Trying to kill fish without killing them is difficult. And it's not like the death is painful. It's quick. And it's hard for wolves to chow down on a live animal, Especially if the animal is bigger than them. I want to tie this down with what was said in the last round, About animals killing other animals for fun, Mostly because of inter-species conflict. However, I want to emphasize on what you said 'Plenty of animals kill for fun. ' But do you count inter-species conflict killing for fun? And even if they were 'killing for fun' humans can't control who they kill and why. However, We can control trophy hunting.

Also, Trophy hunting is disrespectful to the animal and suggesting that animals are 'no more than toy soldiers. ' Even if humans are worth more than animals (which I don't agree with) you still shouldn't treat other beings by killing them and then hanging their head up onto the walls!

Trophy hunting isn't lethal and shouldn't be illegal. How can people get away with killing animals?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, After our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, And over the fowl of the air, And over the cattle, And over all the earth, And over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "--Genesis 1:24-26

Matthew Scully, Speachwriter for George W. Bush says that 'dominion' does not mean that we can kill animals and do whatever we want to them. He says that God meant that we are the protectors of animals.

However, Trophy hunting is contradicting that. We don't have the right to treat animals like flimsy toys, We must protect them as well as out planet earth.


Thank you as well.

Ive proven in this debate that trophy hunting increases the population of endagered animals. With no viable alternative, Eliminating trophy hunting will result in a net increase in animal death.

Given the debate is predicated on stopping trophy hunting to help animals, I need say no more.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by brodiescott76 1 month ago
Missmedic, Do you have any evidence to suggest Don Jr participates in unregulated hunting?
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
Unregulated trophy hunting like don trump jr. Does, Then yes stop that kind. However big game hunting in North America (Canada USA) is highly regulated. Big game hunting (Aka trophy hunting) produces millions of dollars that go towards management and protection of both the animals and there habitat.
Most all wild animals live a short life, Reproduce and die a violent death. However if you want suffering on a scale only humans can produce take a long look at how your meat, Milk, And eggs are made.
Posted by brodiescott76 1 month ago
Trophy hunting is extremely regulated and is a primary reason the rare animals are not going extinct.
Posted by brodiescott76 1 month ago
Trophy hunting is extremely regulated and is a primary reason the rare animals are not going extinct.
Posted by debate.org765634856 1 month ago
I believe it is necessary to stop trophy hunting because most of the animals that are being killed are the rarest wild animals, That is why they show them off in their home, They can use this "prize" on the wall or on the living room floor. It is relevant that the public gets information about the facts of this hobby, Get better laws and policies to regulate and prohibit this killing.
Posted by MFAA14593 1 month ago
I consider, It is quite necessary to stop trophy hunting. First, Because it is so cruel to kill or torture animals just to satisfy the human ego. Second, Because this practice affects natural ecosystems, As a result, Some animals, Such as some species of rhinoceros, Are at risk of extinction. Finally, This inhumane practice does not have an important reason. I mean, In this case, People do not hunt to eat or survive but most of the time it is to earn money. In conclusion, For me, The end definitely does not justify the means.
Posted by Ihsieman 1 month ago
Yeah. . . But most animals eat their prey alive, Legs to head, So if I were a deer, I would rather die from eight gunshots over five hours, Than be eaten alive for ten minutes.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.