To Hunt or Not to Hunt

To hunt, or not to hunt—that is the question that animal and nature enthusiasts on opposing sides of the issue frequently ask and debate about…

Trophy hunting, leisure hunting for meat, and game viewing, also known as “photographic safaris,” each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages in terms of their impact on the environment and the economy.

It is also frequently presented in a deceptive manner as a conflict between “hunters” and “conservationists,” as if the animal welfare brigade alone is deserving of the label “conservationist,” or as if hunters were not also concerned with animal welfare.Both of these groups are actually conservationists, they just approach the objective of preserving wildlife and its habitat in different ways, with a lot of grey areas in between. Both those who are “pro-hunting” and those who are “anti-hunting” have valid points of view. The act of hunting is deeply ingrained in a great number of rural cultures across the globe; however, the vast majority of people, particularly those who come from urban settings in the prosperous Northern hemisphere, are unable to relate to this or find anything positive in the pursuit of hunting because it is not a part of their own experience.

Their concerns for the well-being of animals may have their origins in the growing awareness that animals also experience pain, as well as the fact that humans and other animals are branches on the same tree of animal life.Both camps have a tendency to exaggerate the economic and ecological benefits of their respective viewpoints while ignoring or playing down the negative aspects of those positions. The economic impact of hunting vs game viewing, or the so-called “non-consumptive” approach to ecotourism, and their contrasting roles in wildlife conservation are the subject of much discussion and dispute. There have been a lot of studies that claim that the “non-consumptive” strategy has much more benefits than hunting. On the other hand, trophy hunting is frequently the only economically viable alternative in isolated places that are devoid of services, which may cause photographic tourists to avoid visiting those areas. Although it is clear that photographic or game viewing safaris do generate significantly more income than hunting does, this is simply because significantly more people participate in these types of safaris.

But hunting possesses its own economic value chain, which consists of components such as taxidermy, butcheries, guiding fees, accommodations, and so on.

According to figures provided by pro-hunting organisations, hunting and activities directly related to it are responsible for the preservation of 17.1 million hectares of privately-owned land in South Africa.

Ecotourism also has a significant carbon footprint.  The scores of tourists who travel by airplane is just one example. The presence of more lodges, roads, and other facilities in areas designated as non-hunting wildlife reserves raises problems regarding the meaning of the word “non-consumptive.” The number of lodges is ridiculously high, as is the amount of water (pumped out of the earth) needed for their plunge pools, Jacuzzis, outdoor showers, and inside showers… Then there’s the off-roading in large 4x4s to get to where the photos will be taken. As they speed through the veld the amount of damage they cause to the flora and species can be enormous. Often shy animals like cheetahs are chased away from their kills by such game viewing vehicles, causing them to lose their lives…

In contrast trophy hunting targets animals that are on their last set of teeth that will starve to death in their old age. Nobody who hunts has anything against ecotourism that doesn’t involve hunting. In fact, they accept both the benefits and the drawbacks associated with it. Hunting can be the most effective, as well as the most inexpensive, as well as the most compassionate method for removing surplus numbers of trophy and non-trophy game from any property that contains game. This is necessary because there is only a certain amount of land available in the ecosystem that wild game occupy. The taking of a portion of any animal as a trophy or memento should be acceptable then. If hunters do not come to these now wildlands, the land will be turned back to being used for cattle, sheep, goats, crop land, and even developments such as buildings, communities, and mines, which will result in a total loss for everyone.

We do not urge anyone to hunt who does not choose to do so, but those who do so should hunt with the assurance that they will be guided responsibly by us and that they will be contributing to the maintenance of the natural balance as well as the feeding of our human population. Individuals who do not hunt and do not gather wild natural items should not criticize people who do hunt and gather or obtain a trophy item. Simply put, and in the good nature of politeness, respect, and caring, if you have never hunted wild game, you should not comment negatively on the activity or profession.

Some Pros and Cons of Hunting



Hunting lets you spend time in nature Hunting is a costly hobby
Hunting can create patience Hunting is risky
Hunting assures your meat supply Hunting is not for sensitive persons
Hunting help improve your fitness Hunting may conflict with people’s ethics
Hunting sharpens your senses Trophy hunting can contribute to the endangerment of species
Hunting controls animal populations Hunting is not suitable for people with poor vision
Hunting is an income source for many people Overhunting can be a problem


You might also be interested in reading about the ban on hunting of elephants, black rhinos, and leopards.


Your Name(Required)

Latest Hunting News

To Hunt or Not to Hunt

To Hunt or Not to Hunt

To hunt, or not to hunt—that is the question that animal and nature enthusiasts on opposing sides of the issue frequently ask and debate about…

Read More »