Trophy hunting should not be banned.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Some say trophy hunting is helping animal conservation. Some say the opposite.
I will keep this short. Thx for accepting.
Trophy hunting does not, in fact, benefit animals, nor help animal conservation. Hunters say they help ‘clean the environment’ by taking trophy carcasses away and allow the younger ones to take charge. Indeed, it does seem reasonable, but you will find out it does not hold much water:
If one is to say that trophy hunters only kill the old and weak, thus helping the young shine in their prime, they are taking away the carcasses of the old and weak, meaning the bodies of dead animals will not be able to fertilise the soil. If the soil is not fertilised or rich in nutrients and protein, the grass and plants that grow will also be weaker and less nutritious. When herbivores consume those plants, they too will become a weaker version of their earlier generation. By ‘cleaning’ the environment of old bodies, the trophy hunters are not just ridding vultures of their food, but also weakening the herbivore generations.
Therefore, trophy hunting should be banned because its long term consequences are weakening future animal populations and the environment.
- A large study found that at least 340 million acres of wild habitats have been conserved by trophy hunting across sub-Saharan Africa . Clearly, trophy hunting has significant ecological conservational benefits.
- ICUN research: "trophy hunting, if well managed, is often a higher value, lower impact land use than alternatives such as agriculture or tourism" .
Trophy hunting...nor help animal conservation.
- My case has already demolished this point.
- Soil gets nutrients from many things, not just dead animal bodies so the soil not be impacted. I have shown evidence that regulated trophy hunting has significant conservational benefits. If natural habitats are not conserved there will be much fewer animals.
I disproved all of con's points. Con has dropped all my arguments.
- Extend all arguments.
- I cite literal International Union for Conservation of Nature research that openly states the ecological conservation benefits of trophy hunting. This was cons's main argument for banning the practice and con has run away, (clearly scared) I have won the debate.
- "Our findings highlight the usefulness of insights from choice modeling for the design of wildlife management and conservation policies and suggest that trophy hunting in Ethiopia could generate substantially more financial support for conservation and be more in line with conservation objectives than is currently the case" Trophy hunters’ willingness to pay for wildlife conservation and community benefits
- ICUN: "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"