Hunting: Barbaric or Natural?

Hunting originated from survival. In the past, we needed to kill another animal if we wanted to live, whether that be food based or for protection. Simple. But now it is more ethically complex, as the main reason behind hunting in the United States has changed. We no longer hunt for food, but pick it up in our local grocery store. If we no longer hunt for sustenance, then why do we do it?

Credit

Some Americans are die hards, out hunting before than can walk, and shooting their first deer before they are even five years old. Others are admantant that hunting is cruel and should be completely banned. But where do you stand?

An article in Scientific American presents the point that "nothing could be more natural than hunting." All animal species, humans included, have been predator or prey at some point. Since humans have hunted other predators to low numbers, hunting herds of prey animals is a way to control populations below carrying capacity.

In high school I spoke to a Game Commission Officer about his perspective on the hunting controversy. In his opinion, hunting actually made life better for the deer. Without hunting, the herds of deer would be well over carrying capacity and starving on dwindling resources. Hunting lowers the population enough that the living deer have ample resources to live without suffering. In other words, lower numbers of deer caused by hunting mean healthier deer.

Another proponent to hunting is that it can be fun. Spending time outdoors, tracking game, and learning about nature are times that many people enjoy. Watch the video on the right of a young girl reacting to her first successful hunt.

Credit

On the other hand, others such as animal rights groups are adamantly against the practice of hunting and believe it is ethically wrong to kill an animal. The main reason people are against hunting is animal suffering. It is not uncommon for animals to die a significant amount of time after they are shot. Therefore, the death is not painless and is unnecessarily prolonged. I searched "how long does it take for a hunted animal to die after being shot?" and was surprised by the results. Pages entitled How Long Should I Wait? and You Shot a Deer. Here's How to Find It were only a couple of the many pages implying the significant amount of time it takes animals to die after being shot. In the How Long Should I Wait? page by Cabelas, hunters are advised to wait 6-8 hours if they believe they had a single lung shot. 6-8 hours!

Glenn Kirk of The Animals Voice states that hunting is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He also argues that hunting disrupts the natural balance of the ecosystem. 

Credit

Trophy hunting issues are another downfall for the hunting argument. Sometimes people hunt for just the head of the animal, and nothing more. Only the head of the animal is removed and the rest of the body is left to rot. Infamous trophy hunting pictures of the safari animals such as rhinos, giraffes, lions, etc. are commonly plastered across media. The US denstist who killed Cecil the lion is one of many examples. Watch this video if you are unfamiliar with this specific case. Is hunting ethically sound if it is only for the head of an animal or the thrill of the kill? 

To hunt or not to hunt is a question I find difficult to answer. On one hand, there's the fun of the hunt and the practicality of population control. From the other perspective, killing animals for pleasure, which causes animal suffering is unethical. Ultimately, I believe that hunting has a place in our society as long as it is for animal welfare reasons, to control populations. In this respect, people can still have fun outdoors tracking and hunting animals. However, I am fully against trophy hunting because solely the thrill of the kill is in no way worth the death of an animal.

Where do you stand? Do you believe that hunting in any respect is moral? Should we only hunt for food? Is trophy hunting an ethical practice? Let me know where you stand on these issues!

Zoos: Education or Exploitation?

As a young girl who watched Animal Planet instead of cartoons on a Saturday morning, zoos were my ideal trip. My family once visited 12 zoos in one summer, and I sit here with a smile on my face reminiscing on the time when a 2000 pound elephant stroked my face with a touch like a feather. But zoos are not necessarily a fairytale, and with maturity, ethical questions have become entangled in my precious memories. We must ask ourselves, is it moral to keep wild animals in captivity? Should animals be used for entertainment like orcas, or only for breeding of endangered species like rhinos?

Credit

From the pro viewpoint, one key contribution of zoos that cannot be dismissed is their involvement in breeding animals that face extinction. Once a species becomes critically endangered, captive breeding is often the only way to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Watch this video for a case study on the important role of zoos in conservation.

Credit

Another argument for the use of zoos is their role in education. Many zoos run educationl programs that teach people about properly caring for animals and conservation efforts. From personal experience, learning about zoo life first hand as well as the reality of poaching, endangered species, and extinction was invaluable as a youngester. There is only so much you can learn about an animal from the TV, but actually seeing a giraffe in real life is a whole new experience.

Credit

Even with  conservation and educational positives, negatives still permeate the morality of zoos. According to an article in animal-facts.org, the main argument against zoos is the belief that zoos cannot provide the ideal environment for every type of animal. Currently animals in zoos are housed in "mini-habitats" that replicate their natural environment. This includes streams, real trees, grass, etc. to keep the animal in a similar habitat. Animals are kept contained with natural barriers such as moats and rock walls as a opposed to a chain link fence or iron bar cage. Even with all these actions, it is nearly impossible to make it like the wild. For example, elephants can walk 50 km a day and travel in a herd of 30 to 40 in its natural habitat.  In a zoo, elephants only live on a couple acres and often live with only a couple elephants.

Credit

One disturbing aspect of wild animals in captivity is zoochosis. Zoochosis is defined by wildlife.org.nz as an obsessive compulsive type behavior such as "bar biting, head bobbing, pacing, circling, excessive grooming, self-mutilation, etc." The causes of this behavior include separation from natural habitat, direct control by humans, and caging. Unfortunately, it is prevalent in the current zoo system. In a 2001 study of 257 captive Giraffe in 49 United States zoos, 80% exhibited some form of zoochosis. Read this article to find out more about the different symptoms and effects of zoonosis.

Those that are supportive of zoos fight back on the alarming statistics stating zookeepers are trained with specialist knowledge and are often in charge of one particular species. Each zookeeper creates games for the animals for mental stimulation that prevents the animals from becoming bored or depressed.

Credit

Those against zoos have a counter claim to the conservation efforts of zoos, stating that in one case study there were 167 attempts to introduce a certain species, only 16 of which were sucessful. Even though this is better than nothing, protesters claim that this is not worth the suffering of the animals that are kept within zoos.

From a personal perspective, all of these statistics and examples are pushing me away from supporting that animals should be kept in zoo. Yes, zoos are bad because an animal is deprived of its true natural habitat leading to mental issues, but benefits from education and conservation of endangered species are invaluable. I sit here feeling against animals being confined, yet I have a trip to the zoo planned this weekend. At the end of the day, I believe it is fair if zoos are only for conservation and animal welfare. In this respect, I don't think zoos are exploiting animals for profit.

Do you believe that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty? Does the need for conservation outweigh the animal welfare issues?  Let me know your thoughts on this morally complex issue of keeping animals in zoos.