Category: Hunting

For many centuries, gathering and collecting have been among the most rudimental ways of obtaining food for local communities worldwide. To augment their diets, many societies engage in hunting wild animals. Governments and conservationists in many states have outlawed the tradition, thus denying the people their livelihood: killing animals for food and commercial purposes which has led to their impoverishment. Basing their argument against the backdrop of financial losses, the organizations have failed to capture the multidimensional benefits that accrue to the people from coursing and trapping wild animals (Strong & Silva, 2020). Besides, they miss the major reasons why those located near the parks hunt. Conversely, the reasons include sourcing for household meat, managing the conflict between animals and human beings, and generating income for the latters families. Conversely, the local communities argue that the bodies against poaching care for animals while they disregard people (Strong & Silva, 2020). This paper highlights the articles credibility by proving that the authors carried out research and shows its usefulness to readers and policymakers through various cases on the impacts of hunting prohibitions among the communities.

The credibility of the Article

The article was not only published in a biological conservation journal, but also by academicians. Besides, the authors have carried out research to support their assertions. For example, they have utilized various approaches to understand the underlying challenges of the ban on hunting. The analysis of interviews conducted in South Africa where 435 respondents from three areas surrounding the protected regions participated prove how the prohibitions have impoverished the people (Strong & Silva, 2020). Also, the scholars have utilized the capability approach proposed by Amartya Sen to understand the impact of the ban as highlighted in the article. Moreover, studies done in Namibia and Mozambique where the state and the private sector carried out similar conservation policies make the article credible (Strong & Silva, 2020). Further, the article contradicts early findings on poaching in Namibia. It shows the link between anti-hunting costs and conservancy perception (Strong & Silva, 2020). As such, the aforementioned examples show the credibility of the article.

The Usefulness of the Article

This information is useful since it highlights issues that other researchers have not discussed through the introduction of a different view. Unlike previous works that supported the prohibition of hunting without considering its impact on the local communities, as proposed by conservationists, the article highlights how anti-poaching laws undermine such initiatives and diminish their viability. For example, respondents from South Africa and Mozambique revealed that hunters are arrested in both countries, and some are killed (Strong & Silva, 2020). The article suggests the analysis of local ideas on Illegal Wildlife Hunting (IWH) to find common ground between the social construction, which is about poverty and biological conservation. This will reveal the origin of the animosity between the local communities and the agencies that ban hunting.

Conclusion

In summation, this article has highlighted home consumption, revenue, and human-wildlife conflict management as the main reasons for hunting by local communities. In addition, by publishing the article in a scholarly journal and carrying out thorough research, the authors have made the information credible. Lastly, it is useful for policymakers and conservationists to understand the origin of conflicts and provide viable solutions to reduce tensions between concerned groups.

Reference

Strong, M., & Silva, J. A. (2020). Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional wellbeing. Biological Conservation, 243, 108451. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108451

Hunting has been a diverse topic among many different groups of people, all of which have their own opinions on the matter on whether hunting is ethical or not. Not everyone is understanding of what hunting is actually about. Hunting is not a sport, as many people come to believe that it is. There are different practices to hunting, and how these practices are used among hunters determines if the actions are ethical or not. No one hunter is going to be exactly the same, each one has their own values and morals when it comes to the hunt. That is why there are laws, regulations, and hopefully good morals an individual will follow by to make a hunt as ethical as possible. But, the hunt is not the act that can lead to unethical choices. It’s also what someone does with the animals after the hunt has just as much weight on ethics than the hunt itself. Everything that one does from the moment they decide to go hunting all the way up to using parts of the animal are choices that a hunter will make. Pending on those choices that are being made will determine just how ethical the action was.

Is it Ethically ok to Kill an Animal?

The biggest question that is debated when it comes to hunting would be is it ok to kill an animal? Like, what was mentioned before, not everyone has the same opinions when it comes to hunting. To most hunters and people, it is ethically ok to kill an animal within considerations. Most people believe that it is only ok to kill an animal if they intend to use the resources the animal gives you to the full extent of it’s benefits. But, to others they do not believe that it is morally right to take another living creatures life no matter what it is used for. Not everyone has the same ethically values and morals as another. When interviewing a management hunter, and he was asked this question, his response was one that most people would receive from his kind of hunting. Mr. Strickland said “Yes, I do believe that hunting is ethically when it does the proper way. One must not just kill an animal for fun, but for the sole purpose to use the animal to its full potential. To use as much of its resources, and to make sure one is not causing further harm to others (animals or humans) or the environment in which these species reside in.” (D. Strickland, personal communication, October 19, 2019).So, these big questions tend to stir up debates and controversy among people. In the end, the question does not have a fully right and wrong answer. The answer of whether it’s ethically right or wrong to kill an animal lies deeper into the decisions and actions of the hunter themselves and how to intend to use to the animal.

Why is This an Ethical Issue?

Hunting tends to bring out some of the biggest diverse topics and debates amongst people. Another main question that gets asked about hunting besides is it ethically ok to kill an animal, is why has this become an ethical issue debate? There are multiple answers to this question from multiple different people who have their own views on the situation. When interviewing Mr. Strickland, he had mentioned “No matter how well someone follows the laws, and morals when it comes to hunting. Someone will always find a flaw within a hunter and say they were unethical in practice.” (D. Strickland, personal communications, October 19,2019). One person that has a lot of insight on hunting is a game warden himself. They are in the front of everything, to upholding the laws, finding justice within the laws, and how to justify if someone committed an unethical act. When interviewing Sgt. Dan Vogel, and asked about the ethical debate on hunters and what his experience has been. He mentioned “Throughout my years as a warden, I have come across many different cases. But, the one that I will always remember the most that really shaped me was when I had received a call about a youth hunter who had killed two turkeys with one shot; one of which was a hen, which is illegal. When I arrived on the scene, and did my investigation I knew that even though killing the hen was illegal, I could not write a citation. Instead, I had a small conversation with the young man and told him that I wanted him to remember that the ethical thing he had his dad call the warden about the issue, and he did not just continue on and lie about taking the hen. I did end up confiscating the hen as evidence, but I did leave him with his tom (larger bearded male), congratulated him and told him to keep thriving and flourishing as a hunter. By all means I was in the right to give him a citation, but I did not want him to remember that and discourage him. (D. Vogel, personal communication, October 20, 2019). This is a debate that will never be settled, there will always be disagreements amongst other hunters, and other organizations that ban together in hopes to bring hunting to an end. The only thing that can be done is to keep teaching people ethical ways to hunt and use the resources to their full advantage, and punish those who do not obey the laws, and try to make sure that their punishment is ethical and justifiable as possible.

Disobeying Hunting Regulations

Poaching

Though there tend to be multiple people who support hunting, there are also many reasons that have given hunters and the practice of hunting such a bad name. Many of these reasons are because of the people who do not follow the laws that are set into place to manage wildlife to ensure it keeps flourishing for years to come. One of the common issues that may corrupt the hunting society and make it unethical would be poaching. Poaching is the illegal killing of an animal that is not in season or is considered endangered or protected. Poaching can cause an unbalance within ecosystems, and can cause an imbalance within the populations of different species who benefit from each other. An example of poaching an animal that is not in season based on the timeframe that is specified could be a deer being killed in July. This is considered poaching because almost all deer seasons start in September and go through December unless it is urban archery. Also, this would be considered unethical especially if it was a doe because they are either still pregnant or they have just given birth to their fawns. This would be unethical because if someone kills a pregnant doe then they’re killing not only her, but also the unborn fawns. If she already had her fawns, and someone was to kill the doe, then the fawns would not be able to fend for themselves at such a young age and would be vulnerable to the elements and predators. There are other illegal and unethical hunting practices, other laws must also be obeyed in order for a hunter to engage in ethical hunting.

Tag Limit

Another illegal and unethical hunting practice that sometimes gives hunting a bad reputation is not obeying the laws and going over tag limits. According to the, (N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission) each hunter with a registered license has a tag limit of six deer, only four of which can be antlerless deer also known as a doe or a button buck because they do not have protruding antlers, and two antlered deer also known as a buck because of protruding antlers (p. 62, 2019). An example of a hunter going over their tag limit would be if they have already filled up both of their antlered tags and killed another buck and didn’t claim it. This is unethical for multiple reasons, one, the hunter has gone over their tag limit, this would be considered unethical because when taking more bucks than the two a hunter is given which varies from state to state, the hunter is causing an imbalance in the buck to doe ratio which causes an imbalance to the population. The second reason is that the hunter did not report the buck that was harvested, and three, the hunter has ultimately affected the population for the future. Another example would include if a hunter has already filled all six of their tags and then decided to harvest another deer. This would also fall under the same unethical reasons as stated before. If a hunter becomes dishonest when reporting an animal then it becomes an issue not only for other hunters because when more deer are being taken than can be counted for, the effect on the population within that area is being depleted, and if more hunters are taking deer whether that be legal or non-legal kills the deer population can diminish faster than the Wildlife Commission would expect it too. This is based off of the Wildlife Commission using the tags that are being called in to calculate the populations of the intended animal in that specific region which will determine if the tag limits need to change for the upcoming seasons so the populations can still flourish. Emmanuel Kant stated “a lie always harms another, if not another human being, then it does harm to humanity in general” (Albanese, 2016, p.31). In other words, if a hunter lies about a kill, then he is being unethical and is also creating an underlying problem for the future populations of animals whether that be deer, turkey, bear, etc…

Different Usage of Deer

Antlers

Well, it has already been discussed about how to use the meat of a deer to its fullest potential. But, how can one use something that cannot be eaten, such as the antlers of a buck. The antlers do not actually rot or waste as they are technically bone. Some may not know, but they can be used for knife handles, decor items, and many other useful objects. Since antlers are a bone, they are harder in material, and that is why they are used as knife handles since they will be sturdy and not easily broken, with the bonus of the nice look they bring as a finish. Another, good use that has been done with antlers is making them into household items. There have been decor items where they are used a toilet paper holders, etc… These are good uses of the antlers because one is still using as much as possible off of the deer, and using them to their needs.

Buck Velvet

The velvet on a buck has become very valuable to consumers, like the tusks and horns on an elephant or rhino. It has been discovered that the velvet a deer has on their antlers when they’re growing has growth hormones in them that many bodybuilders and pro-athletes like to use as a supplement. Anabolic growth factors have been found in deer antler velvet and they are like insulin growth factors. One that can be found is IGF-1, which “stimulates new cell growth and has been shown to improve muscularity, healing and recovery times, decreases in body fat, and an increase in lean muscle mass” (Carmody, 2019). Another growth factor that has been found in the velvet is IGF-2 also stimulates tissue growth. These supplements that are being made from the velvet is 100% natural, and almost has the same effects that anabolic steroids have on one’s body. Some studies that have been done on the effects of antler velvet have shown improvement in athletic performances. Also, including improvement in one’s physical ability but also improvement in one’s own mental capacity as well. (Carmody, 2019).

Different Types of Hunters

Management Hunter

Now, that there has been some background on hunting and some reasons why it can be considered unethical it is time to discuss the different types of people within hunting who can either make it ethical or unethical. One of the people who would be considered ethical to most people is the management hunter. A management hunter is someone that would fall under the ethical category because they hunt to keep the population under control and keep all the ecosystem within balance. A lot of times a management hunter will also hunt places that do not have a high predator area. This is because with a lower number of predators within a region, the higher the prey will be which can put the area at an imbalance (Turtenwald, 2019). These types of hunters want to ensure that their land has the most beneficial deer to keep the populations flourishing. This means that they will take out any deer that will not help, which includes, does that cannot produce fawns anymore, or if a deer does not have the proper genetics then they will be taken out as well. Also, many of the times they will use the meat of the animals as a food source, or they donate the meat to shelters for other people to use instead of leaving the meat to waste and rot. These types of hunters have morals and values in respecting the wildlife and following the laws.

Meat Hunter

Next, a meat hunter is someone who hunts animals strictly for the use of their meat. This type of hunter is someone does not care about the size of the antlers, or what gender the deer is. Along those lines, a true meat hunter is considered to be someone that lives by the saying “if it’s brown, it’s down”. They generally will kill anything that comes in front of them whether it be a yearling, a mature deer or anything in between. Their main purpose when hunting is getting as much meat into their freezer as possible to have an abundance of a food source to provide with. Though, they are considered an ethical hunter because they use the meat, and try to use as much of the deer as possible. But, they do have some waivering values which could be considered unethical to some people.

Trophy Hunter

Lastly, a hunter that is on the lower end of values to most people is the trophy hunter. A trophy hunter is someone that only wants the largest rack on a buck, one that has the most scoring and value for record books. These hunters can respect the laws to a certain extent and sometimes their values do not meet those of a meat or population management hunter. Also, another form of a trophy hunter would be someone who goes out to Africa, and does safari hunting. An example of safari hunting would be if someone paid to go on some form of a Safari hunt killing a lion, giraffe, etc… There was a big controversy back in 2015, when a dentist had killed a very beloved lion. The dentist had paid a large amount of money for this guided trophy lion hunt in Africa, which led to the death of the beloved lion. Many people were furious about this, and giving death threats to the dentist. His family and him eventually had to go into to protection due to the massive amounts of death threats he was receiving which was a price he had to pay due to the mistake the guide made by letting the dentist kill the lion. Based off of these hunters, and the decisions that they make whether they be ethical or not determines how they influence the environment these animals live in, how the populations can be affected by this, and also the values of future hunters.

In the end it doesn’t really matter what type of hunter you are, though some may disagree. All hunters have their own opinions, and values when it comes to hunting animals. The most important and ethical thing when it comes to taking and processing a deer is to have as minimal waste as possible. Whether that be all the meat is being used us as a food source to provide for either the hunter and their family, or for other families if the meat is being donated. The antlers on a buck is being used, either as decorations like some people use them for, or for more usable things such as tools, knife handles, etc… Ultimately, the most ethical way to use a deer is to use up as much of the resources the animal gives you and to have as minimal leftovers of the animal as possible, only then is someone getting the most benefits out of it.

Philosophers Opinions

Emmanuel Kant

Emmanuel Kant is a philosopher who focuses on one’s duty (Albanese, 2016, p.27). This means that Kant mainly focused on the motives and intentions that lead someone to do something that was either ethical or unethical. For many hunters, they all have different intentions and motives when it comes to hunting wild game; Not all intentions are the same. Insert here the motives of meat and trophy hunters. Would Kant agree with motives? Overall, with everything that Emmanuel Kant believes in with his code of ethics, he would not agree with hunting being an ethical practice. That is because hunting cannot be grouped and fall under one universal law. Emmanuel Kant is not the only philosopher who would have an opinion on hunting. Some philosophers may even disagree with Kant, and believe hunting is ethical to an extent. Which leads us to a second and final philosopher that has a different view than Kant does.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill is a philosopher who focused on utility (Albanese, 2016, p.38). This means that Mill mainly focused on the consequence that resulted from someone’s actions. This is the opposite viewpoint from Emmanuel Kant who focuses on one’s motives and intentions. For many hunters, Mill would be able to understand and relate more because they all have different intentions when it comes to hunting, so basing it off of the consequence can be easier to determine if the hunter is ethical or not. An example of scenario that Mill would agree with would be, if a hunter was unethical with going over their tag limit and not reporting a harvest, that when the game warden found out and wrote him a citation for his this. That it would be acceptable. The consequence that the hunter faced with lying on his tags would be getting a citation when busted. An example that Mill would disagree with would be if a hunters motivation was to just kill animals for their value. This is because Mill does not base his ethics code off of motivations. The consequence to that scenario though would more than likely be that the hunter just harvested the games values and left everything out to rot and waste. Overall, with everything that John Stuart Mill believes in, and based off of his code of ethics he would agree with some of the hunting practices, but he may not agree with all of them.

Conclusion

All things considered among the very controversial topic of hunting, it can be seen how people could consider this to be an ethical issue. These different practices and how a hunter uses them has a significant role in the determining of the ethical practice. When practices are doing being done properly and the resources that are being provided are ignored is when ethics start to be questioned. This is not a sport and to most this is not a competition either. Hunting is used mainly for the sole purpose of providing for one’s family, and making sure to the balance of the species does not get out of ratio, along with keeping a good balance within their ecosystem, and the habitat in which they reside in. Everything must be taken into consideration, and how there can be a domino effect by the actions that a hunter takes when hunting is involved.

When you hear the word trophy? Do you think of antlers or skins with patterns, most people’s minds go to trophy cups or medals Trophy hunting is the act of hunting animals and killing them, then taking their body or parts of it as a trophy. Trophy hunting is currently a subject for many intense worldwide debates, both sides the supporter’s opposers have never come close to an agreement, as the supporters say that trophy hunting is, in fact, beneficial and the opposers say that it is not, trophy hunting is not beneficial as it is unsafe, it is unfair for taxpayers and it has many negative consequences for the animals.

Opposers to trophy hunting state that trophy hunting is unsafe as they have compared it to other forms of recreation, and it is by far the most dangerous as the injuries are far more likely to be fatal. According to the International Hunter Education Association, approximately 1000 people in the United States and Canada get shot by hunters, there are also less than 75 cases a year of self-inflicted fatalities, some examples of self-inflected fatalities include the hunter tripping, falling or even shoots themselves all lead to fatal injuries, there is also the possibility of injuries happening in hunting parties, where the hunter shoots the other hunter which results in a very serious injury, another study by the National Safety Council, it is shown that one out of every 114 injuries is caused by a motor vehicle crash and one out of every 6,905 is an accidental firearms discharge, trophy hunting does not only harm the people hunting but the people that did not participate at all, trophy hunters like to chase the animals before killing them, this leads to the animals they are hunting to run flee, they are more likely to run to the streets, homes or nearby villages which will lead to fatal injuries, for example, car crashes, as proven trophy hunting are by far the most dangerous as it not only hurts the people involved in hunting but also the people that did not participate at all.

Trophy hunters look for animals with a special quality or characteristic for example, antlers or an animal with a specific skin pattern, by doing that they are looking for the strongest and healthiest of the group, on the other hand they claim that they hunt for the weakest and sickest of the group to put them out of misery, but in reality they are doing the complete opposite, that can lead to many negative consequences for killing the healthiest and strongest of the group impacts the group negatively as they might not be able to find food or defend themselves from their predator which leads to innocent animals suffering, another negative impact that trophy hunting has on the animal species is that it may lead to extinction, with the help of climate change the environmental conditions change for example, areas with cold climate become warm, less rainfall and hotter summer this proves that the animals are already at risk and by hunting the healthy packs, trophy hunting may be a sport, but it does not positively impact the animal as it only helps the suffering of the pack and the extinction of the animals.

Many argue that trophy hunting is unfair for taxpayers, it is in fact viewed by the public with disgust and most people do not support it, the public recognizes that trophy hunters only hunt endangered and exotic animals which lead to their extinction, lands managed for hunting are mostly purchased and taken care of with tax dollars, people argue that this is unfair because 95% of Americans do not hunt and do not even support it, it is unfair for their money to go to a cause that they do not support and a cause that does not benefit them, the country of Saudi Arabia recognizes the ineffectiveness of trophy hunting and does not let their citizens pay for something that does not benefit them or the country, they have also made it illegal to bring these exotic animals into the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Trophy hunters and the supporters of trophy hunting argue that by hunting certain animals, for example by killing deers it will help reduce human and deers interactions such as car crashes which is caused by deer crossings, they also argue that it will help decrease the spread of Lyme disease, on the other hand it is shown that the rate of human and deer conflicts increase in November, it is shown that in September till December it is the hunting season for deers, this comes to show that the hunting season impacts the interactions between humans and deer as trophy hunting might also be the cause deer and human conflicts, it is estimated that during the months at September till December one out of every 100 rivers will be involved in a car collision with deers, on the other hand of a popular belief trophy hunting does not help reduce the spread of Lyme disease, Lyme disease is a disease spread by ticks usually in grassy areas and it is not spread by deers, some countries have recognized the ineffectiveness of trophy hunting one of these countries include the kingdom of Saudi Arabia prince Bandar Bin Saud he is the chairman of the board of Saudi wildlife authority he states that Saudi Arabia has never issued a permit for anyone to sell or bring exotic animals into the country, as Saudi Arabia is also one of the countries that signed the (CITES), Saudi Arabia has been successful in stopping most illegal smuggling attempts and rescuing the animals, but unfortunately some attempts have been successful.

Trophy hunting lacks in its benefits, but it does not lack in cons, trophy hunting is unsafe it has caused many accidents it is also unfair for the taxpayers as their money is going towards a cause they do not support and it also has many negative effects on the animals, trophy hunting is cruelty towards animals, what did the animals do to become trophies?

Hunting is outlined within the wordbook because the activity of looking wild animals or game animals. looking is extremely dangerous however these hunters kill these animals. it’s terribly dangerous as a result of it reduces the population of animal species. looking become the good issue of late , however it worse a lot of once these looking method square measure become the supply to extinct animals , currently at that point some animal species aren’t left on earth .

Hunting is one amongst the worst things to try to to by humans. folks would kill animals for his or her fun. {they square measure|they’re} accustomed go and kill the animals in forest it result badly on the environment as a result of our forest rely upon animals and animals are rely upon forest. thus by killing these animals we have a tendency to square measure destroying our wild society “I don’t connect, at any level, with anyone United Nations agency hunt animals for sport”

Trophy looking is another dangerous state of affairs to induce wedged in kill the animal, and droop up his head as a result of it’s immoral. If someone kill you and droop up your head on the wall. it’s terribly immoral however some folks done that sort of factor for fun and for showing others that {they square measure|they’re} terribly wealthy as a result of the top of animals and their carpets are terribly costly. however the top of the ruminant is additionally altogether|one amongst|one in every of} the costly in all the wild society.

Hunting animals for food is one amongst the most reason as a result of the meat of extinct animals square measure terribly costly and folks like to eat food of those animals. Deer’s meat is extremely standard of late. the rationale of soft on his meat permanently style and his meat is extremely disreputable with jam-packed with macromolecule and fulfill you body all demand. The male ruminant is extremely standard because of extract the notable scent from his body. These square measure some reason to kill ruminant.

Hunting increase the vulnerable animal {and we have a tendency to|and that we} got to stop this act as a result of we square measure destroying wild life and deer’s are {a terribly|a really|a awfully} necessary animal in our wild life and their killing is extremely dangerous for our community it’s very shameful act dangerous by humans. Overall looking could be a dangerous factor, it very will got to be stopped, and it isn’t price killing of these animals. The animals of the globe don’t due to be treated like this.

Coyotes are dreadful and highly despised wild animals. They possess a lot of intelligence and are crafty. Thus it is difficult to track them down. Coyotes are also vicious, and even though they seldom attack human beings, they cause havoc to livestock, domestic pets, and cattle.

Coyote hunting with dogs is a common practice in America. Coyotes are among the wild animals whose population increases along with the increase of human civilization and dogs are essential when hunting them down.

How to hunt Coyotes with Dogs

Step 1: Use the Collar

The decoy dog attracts the coyote’s attention and returns to you with a coyote following it for you to take the shot. A dog that plays the decoy role could be fitted with the collar which buzzes thus signaling your dog to return to you. Attach a collar to your dog with a broad range of signals to allow you to signal your dog even when it is at a significant distance

Step 2: Associate signal to mean recall

Allow the dog to go far ahead of you where there is no present game. Activate its collar and verbally call the dog until he can associate the signal to mean recall. Reward it with a scented rabbit pelt or toy.

Step 3: Come up with distractions

Slowly introduce hunting where there is a coyote or small game scent for following which is extra enticing. Signal the dog and when it comes back to you, reward it with plays and treats

Step 4: Introduce the Coyote

Give exposure to your dog for hunting coyotes. Bait a close coyote and allow the dog to get the Coyote within its sight. Give a signal to your dog to come back to you then shoot the coyote and allow the dog to approach the carcass as a treat.

Step 5: Practice on decoy as well as signal

Improve the range and exposure when you are hunting the coyotes. Bring your dog to various terrains, with the other dogs locating and scenting coyotes and signal the dog to come back with a coyote following to a shooting range.

Best dog breeds for Coyote Hunting

1. The American Staghound

This dog is a crossbreed between the Scottish deerhound and the greyhound. The American Staghound has precise eyesight as well as a great sense of smell, which make them an important companion when hunting coyotes or wolves. Their legs are long and are powerful, implying that they could run fast and posses’ great stamina for keeping up with the coyotes.

2. Plott Hound

The Plot Hounds are famous for their skills in hunting. They were earlier used in hunting boars and are ideal for hunting down predators such as coyotes. Their bodies are great for hunting; for instance, their lean and muscular body enables them to overpower the small predators. Plot Hounds are fast and never shy away from fights.

3. Greyhound

When it comes to coyote hunting with dogs, you require a quick dog that runs for a lot of miles. The Greyhound can even do more than that. Greyhounds are skinny; however, they are strong and muscular enough to run for a plethora of miles. Besides their quick nature, they also possess eagle eyesight for identifying coyotes from afar.

4. Black mouth cur

The name of this dog originates from its black muzzle. This dog has a lot of stamina and energy for tracking and hunting the coyotes. This dog breed is more muscular and lean than other breeds making it the perfect partner for going outdoors to hunt coyotes.

Hunting Dog Training Collar comparison

1. SportDOG

This collar is ideal for waterfowl environments and has a Max-5 Realtree camo finish. It is also resistant to water and 25 feet submersible with the help of DryTek technology. Its batteries are also rechargeable and are made of lithium ion. You will even know the time for changing the battery thanks to the battery indicator.

Pros

• Waterproof
• 12 months warranty
• Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that can last up to 70 hours
• Remote accommodates about three dogs

Cons

• Not ideal for dogs below 8 pounds

2. Garmin SportPRO

This collar features a fast turn dial, which requires one hand operation. It also has four training buttons for momentary and continuous stimulation, tone as well as vibration. The handheld buttons activate the vibration control and tone signal on your dog device. It also has beacon light for the low light situations and is visible even from 100 yards. The LED status allows a quick read on the battery percentage.

Pros

• Can vibrate or beep before offering correction
• Water resistant
• Excellent battery life
• You can utilize the unit on multiple dogs

Cons

• Quite expensive

Dog protection Vest Comparison

1. Browning Chest Protection Vest

The ideal way of keeping your dog highly safe and visible is using this vest. The vest offers a solid dose of the classic orange safety vest. It comprises of a rustle-free and lightweight fabric which is resistant to water. It also has the hook-then-loop flap on the top part with the adjustable straps which offers a comfortable and secure fit. It’s reflective piping on the sides boosts visibility in the low-light situations.

Pros

• Has adjustable straps
• Neoprene offers a snug fit
• Consists of a rustle-free and lightweight waterproof fabric

Cons

• It could leave rub marks on your dog.

2. Browning Camo Dog hunting vest

This vest will perfectly fit any dog, and the neoprene quality is great. It will keep your dog warm and safe. It is also ideal for waterfowl environments. Cleaning this vest is also easy since you can wash it in the dryer and it will dry in less than ten minutes. Moreover, it has great stitching and sturdy Velcro to offer extra comfort.

Pros

• Durable
• Has a big Velcro area where necessary
• Has great neoprene quality
• The handle is beneficial

Cons

• It could tear easily

Summary

From the above information, you can make a decision on which is the best collar, best dog breed, and vest for a successful coyote hunting with dogs. Coyotes are dangerous animals; protect your dog by using the best vests.

Let’s face the truth- killing other animals being an intelligent animal ourselves is quite cruel. However, both death and survival are part of life and we do need food to survive well. Humans have been hunting from the very beginning of their existence to survive in this world and it is something that cannot be given up. However, it sure can be controlled and that is exactly what the countries and their states do. Humans need to hunt a few animals not just for fun but for other purposes as well. Now, if some fun can be derived from such a difficult task, there is no reason to condemn it.

You should be aware of a number of things about hunting and hunting seasons. Apparently, hunting seasons are the seasons or the time period when it is legal to hunt a certain species. If you hunt a species when it is not the hunting season for them then you will get penalized by law. If you are a beginner just entering the world of hunting, here is everything you need to know about hunting seasons. Or else, you may not even know what penalty you face because you did not even know why you are facing it.

The Basics

You will come across these two terms from time to time when you are hunting:

• Open Season: As you can guess, the open season means that it is time and legal to hunt a specific species during this season. For example, September to October is the open season for deer at a certain place means you won’t be penalized if you hunt them then and there.
• Closed Season: Just the opposite of open season, you are prohibited to hunt the specific species during this time. For example, the rest of the year might be closed season for deers.

What is the point of hunting seasons?

What you may be thinking is that these animals are available all year round so why impose hunting seasons? This is because hunting without knowledge and rules has really created an imbalance in the environment and led to the extinction of many species. The reasons for hunting seasons are:

• Control: Keeping hunting seasons gives us control over what we hunt and when. Hunting is necessary just like balance is necessary. And, controlled hunting is the key to maintaining balance.
• Not use Vulnerability: There are seasons when animals are extremely weak. For example, there are times when birds cannot fly and times when a few animals barely move due to cold. In such cases, it should actually hit your moral conscience to not harm these vulnerable creatures because you can wipe out the whole species or at least the majority of it instantly.
• Avoiding breeding seasons: If you are killing a certain number of animals, balance can be maintained only by recreating the same. As a result, most hunting seasons are determined based on the breeding season. The animals are allowed to live in private, making use of their breeding season without the interference of hunters who would kill both them and their future.

The Different Laws in Different Countries and States

To add to your stress, not all hunting laws are similar. This was expected because different states and countries have different seasons at the same time. Apart from that, there are rules based on the equipment you can use, gender, and more.

For example, most states require you to have a hunting license to hunt in the United States of America. On the other hand, in South East Asian countries, you can sneak in to hunt without a license and not even be penalized if you get caught.

There are many different departments in charge of these rules in different areas. For example, there are separate fish and wildlife agencies in different places, agencies for birds, etc. If you plan to hunt then check out the local laws regarding it and follow them carefully.

In fact, you will find some areas are off-limits at different times of the year as well. There is no one guide book to these laws as each state has its own set of rules with its own hunting times.

The things you need to prepare yourself with

As a beginner, you must have some things ready right before the hunting season begins. These are:

• Basic knowledge: We have talked enough about rules, now is the time to know your surroundings. Find out the kind of animals you can hunt around the place and learn their behavior. Since you are the animal with the best brain, you might as well use your skills.
• Train yourself: If a weapon can kill a wild animal, it sure can kill or at least injure you. This is why you cannot just take a gun, a bow or any other weapon and set out to hunt without knowing how to use it. Therefore, it is best that you learn how to hunt, especially how to use a weapon safely even before the hunting season begins.
• Choose your equipment: Based on the animal you will be hunting, you will need to choose your weapon. For example, you usually hunt birds with bows or guns. Sometimes people use traps to lure animals in as well. If you are hunting from a distance, which you probably are, consider getting more equipment like scopes. For example, many people use 6.5 Creedmoor to see better.

Take people with you: If it is your first time, make sure you have experienced people with you. At least take a friend as a backup for the case anything happens.

Examples of Hunting Seasons

Hunting season is different for each state but here is a look into how hunting seasons can actually be. This is from the current schedule of the ‘Finger Trail Lakes’. You can hunt Wild turkey and Spring Turkey from sunrise to noon. Yes, not only do they fix the days but the time as well. This actually makes hunting more convenient as you know when you can find the species. Then, you can bow hunt deer and bear from October 1 to some time.This is the way you will learn about hunting seasons.

In Conclusion

Yes, hunting does seem cruel but that is just how the world runs. Where there is good, there must be evil. But, the more controlled the evil is, the better stays the world.

And, hunting seasons and rules on them what controls the act of hunting for people. Following the rules not only saves you from penalties but also saves the environment. Even though many species have gone extinct, we still have the chance to save the rest by controlling both their death and birth. So, this was pretty much everything you need to know about hunting seasons.

Bow hunting provides recreational activities for a lot of Americans. Bow hunting is a method of hunting done either for recreational purpose or for consumption. This hunting method involves locating and killing animals by using a bow to shoot arrows. This hunting method is suitable for places that have restrictions on fire arms.

In some countries, bow hunting has been outlawed for various reasons. Bow hunting is however legal in USA. Although legal, like many other activities, bow hunting is regulated by laws and regulations. Bow hunting in USA is regulated by federal and state laws. However, it is primarily regulated by state laws. State regulations cover different matters relating to bow hunting such as location to hunt, bow hunting season, animal species, minimum draw weight, animal tagging, laws of trespass and hunting method.

Bow hunting regulations are passed to provide protection of rights of: people, property, resources, the environment and the wild life. Bow hunters are expected to be conversant with the various hunting regulations and to obey these regulations. If and when these regulations are violated, there are consequences will which depend on the state laws. The punishments usually include but are not limited to fines, revocation of hunting license and prison sentence. The gravity of punishment to be imposed on an offender depends on the gravity of violation by the bow hunter.

Some of the areas covered by bow hunting regulations are considered below.

Hunting license

To hunt in public a hunter must have state hunting license. States issue bow hunting license. The process for application and issuing of license is similar in the various states. Hunters are not expected go hunting without their license. Hunting without license attracts penalty. As with many other penalties, the penalty to be imposed differs from state to state. In some states, it attracts penalty of fine but in others jail time.

Hunting location

There are certain places that a hunter is permitted to hunt. Public places are good places to hunt and are provided by government to allow hunters follow their passion. These public places (National Parks) however have regulations and hunters are expected to adhere to these regulations. Hunters can also hunt in private land. To hunt in private land, a hunter needs permission from the land owner to avoid trespass claim. A trespass claim can cause the hunter to pay high damages. Thus, hunters are advised to ensure permission is gotten from land owner before hunting on private land. This applies where the land doesn’t belong to the hunter.

In addition, while hunting, bow hunters are not permitted to shoot a bow across a public path irrespective of whether or not anyone is passing the path. Violation of this rule is punishable with fine and the possibility of jail time, depending on the specific state law.

Draw weight minimum

Draw weight minimum is the force generated by pulling the bow in its full stretch. It is the strength of the bow. Legal minimum draw weight depends on the state and game in question. As a rule of thumb, the legal draw weight is considered to be 35 – 40 pounds. States have minimum or maximum draw weights set out in state regulations. The rationale for setting a minimum or maximum draw weight is to prevent brutality on the game. The type of animal being hinted also determines the minimum or maximum draw weight as certain states set out certain animals for minimum and certain for maximum draw weight.

The following are some of the limits placed by states.

• Alaska has a minimum draw weight of 40 pounds when hunting wolf, deer and wolverine then a maximum of 50 pounds for hunting elk, moose and mountain goat.
• Rhode Island has a minimum draw weight of 40 pounds and a maximum of 50 pounds.
• Arkansas has a minimum draw weight of 40 pounds.
• Connecticut has a minimum draw weight of 40 pounds.
• Washington has a minimum draw weight of 40 pounds.
• Minnesota has a minimum draw weight of 30 pounds.
• Colorado has a minimum draw weight of 35 pounds.
• Nebraska has a minimum draw weight of 125 pounds.
• Kansas has no minimum draw weight.

It is unlawful for a hunter to hunt with a bow that does not meet the minimum draw weight of the state or exceeds the maximum draw weight set.

Type of bow

There are different types of archery bows. They include but are not limited to: Recurve bows, long bows, cross bows and compound bows. Bows are defined in the different state regulations. These definitions serve as a means to exclude types of bow not allowed in a state. There are states with no bow restrictions. Others however place restrictions on not just the type of bow but also the specifications of bow. Some states also state the length of the arrow and size of arrow head. The type of bow allowed also depends on the type of animal the hunter is hunting.

The following are some states and their restrictions.

• The state of Alabama has no restriction whatsoever on bow types.
• In Arkansas, long bow, recurve bow and compound bow are the bows allowed. Scopes are not to be used. Mechanical strings releases may be used.
• In Colorado, long bow, recurve bow or compound bows are to be used by the hunters. Mechanical release is not to be used. It is allowed to be used only if it is hand drawn with no connect ion to the bow. Automatic loading of arrows on bow is not allowed and explosive arrows are not allowed.
• In Hawaii, the type of bow determines the minimum draw weight. Long bow must not be less than 40 pounds. Recurved bows have a minimum draw weight of 35 pounds. Compound bows have a minimum draw weight of 30 pounds.
• In North Carolina, long bows and recurved bows are the recognised types.

Bow hunting season

A hunting season is usually set for bow hunting which is separate from gun hunting season. This regulation is for the protection of hunters as bow hunters tend to dress in camouflage. It would be dangerous to bow hunt in gun season as bow hunter may be caught in the cross fire. Hunting seasons are also regulated to preserve wild life and certain species. Bow hunting season depends on the state regulation. When a season is closed, hunters are not expected to hunt. This is a violation of the state law and is a punishable offence.

Hunting method

In some states, it is illegal to chase, intercept animals with moving vehicles or motorcycles. It is also against the law to shoot a bow while on a motorcycle for hunting. There are however exceptions. For example, exemption is given to hunters with disabled hunters permit.

In certain states, only temporary tree stands and climbing devices are allowed. Permanent ones are prohibited. In addition to this, some states also prohibit baiting to attract game. The only method allowed for attracting game use of scent.

Arrow poison

Arrow poisons are sometimes put on arrow heads for hunting. The poison enters the blood stream of the animal to speed the death process. In certain states, poison is not allowed on the arrow used on animals.

Animal tagging requirement

State laws provide for name tagging and method of tagging. To tag is to label the game in other words, to claim the game. After hunting, the hunter is expected to tag the game. The tag is to indicate the date and signature of the hunter. Tagging is required to be done immediately after the kill, before the game is moved to a vehicle, farm house or residence. It is illegal to not tag a game and of course state laws provide the punishment for violation of the name tagging requirement.

The method of tagging depends on the animal killed. For example, to tag a turkey, the tag is attached to one leg. However, to tag a deer, three tags are put on it. One on the hind leg, another in between the hoof and the last on is put on the ankle joint.

Transportation

When a game is tagged and is to be transported, certain rules apply to the transportation. The law requires that the animal be lawfully tagged and its head long with the external sex organs are still attached to the body of the game.

Harassing other hunters

Harassing of hunters can take various forms. It is against the law for a hunter to deliberately harass another hunter or take the game of another.

Penalty for violation of regulation

Depending on the state and the gravity of the violation, hunting offences range from misdemeanour to felony. When there is a violation of hunting law the hunter may be fined, imprisoned with the option of fine or just imprisoned. Hunting license is a privilege and not a right so upon certain violation, this privilege could be revoked. Hunters are therefore familiarise themselves with the regulations of the state they wish to hunt in, before hunting. This is to avoid violation of regulation.

Preamble

This piece was inspired by my personal experience during my summer volunteer job and research done online. Just like Bruce Chatwin’s The Songlines, it explores the continuity of indigenous culture in our modern society, by recognizing traditional indigenous beliefs about hunting in terms of modern science and art. I also imitated his style of writing by including factual evidence and quotations from experts. I wanted to show connections between modern ideas and aboriginal values in a disjointed manner just like how Chatwin constructed his notebooks, because this method of presentation is effective in proving his argument.

Notebook

‘In Canada, hunting is a human activity often associated with the primeval, yet to many it remains as fundamental to their identity and their way of life as any manifestation of our ‘modern’ experience. ‘ – Jean L. Manore, author of The Culture of Hunting in Canada.

While I was volunteering at the Art Gallery of Ontario, I saw many animal-inspired art pieces in the indigenous collection, however, a unique painting of a man hunting caribou caught my attention. My coworker told me that there are actually indigenous artworks that are inspired by hunting activities. This was the first time that someone told me that by hunting animals, people are becoming more spiritually connected with the land, so I thought it was just another indigenous myth. However, after I finished my volunteering experience, I started to wonder, what if they are right? There is tons of evidence online to prove the benefits of hunting, and scientific research also shows the significance of hunting in terms of our mental health. The indigenous people have always thought animals are an essential part of their culture, the hunting of animals are also a healing tradition in aboriginal culture.

“Many of the social problems facing First Nations communities, including alcoholism, physical abuse, suicide and general feeling of anomie can be linked to the social vacuum that was created when subsistence harvesting and the seasonal round ceased to be the orienting focus of life” – Anthropologica p291.

Evidence proves that hunting as a leisure activity not only serves the purpose of health exercising, but also relieves stress. The practice of hunting is capable of keeping a health active lifestyle for the hunters, the meat retrieved are also healthier than chemically processed meat. In terms of mental health, exercising will cause the release of endorphins which leads to a feeling well-being and reduces anxiety. Hunting is also an social activity that can be done along or with family and friends, many hunters claim that that they feel more relaxed when hunting and spending time with the close ones.

There are also many art pieces inspired by the hunting activities performed. While most artworks are about the cruelty of this activity or the majestic nature of the hunters, some paintings such as the Duck Hunting Companions by Bill Holkham portrays the life cycle in an ecosystem. This painting uses contrasting light colours to demonstrate the life cycle in nature and the painting is calming and peaceful instead of the common bloody image.

In addition, there are also other cultures such as Sikhism that believes in the spiritual healing power of hunting. It is believed that only meat retrieved from hunting are permitted and the courageous act of hunting will make the one creator heal their spirit.

Hunting has been the center of many controversies, but it can act as a positive way to heal others under specific legislations. The interaction between human and nature during the hunting process is what interested me the most. It is also evident that hunting can spiritually heal people by relieving stress or enhancing faith.

“Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they’re in the game”, – Rodriguez.

Poachers, and rich big game hunters, kill millions of animals each year. Trophy hunters alone, kill over 70,000 animals each year. Despite how much money people make for big game hunting, it should be illegal because it doesn’t only control the animal population it destroys it and causes harm to the environment.

Many animals have become endangered or extinct because of big game hunting. An estimated 200,000 lions inhabited Africa a century ago, now approximately 30,000 remain today. Trophy hunters alone are estimated to kill 600 lions annually. People are no longer hunting animals because of how dangerous they are they are killing animals for their size and rareness. For big game hunting there are animals called the ‘Big Five’, which are the animals, people are most hoping to get. The animals of the big five are lions, elephants, rhinoceros, leopards, and buffalo, researchers are saying that these animals are close to qualifying for or likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future. Legalizing hunting can affect animals’ population even within protected areas where hunting is not allowed. For example, if you kill a male lion outside of the protected area it will draw more male lions from inside the protected are and then they too are vulnerable to hunters. If you kill a male lion, you not only killing that one lion, you are killing the male lions, that will compete with each other to try and fill in his spot, and once a new lion is leader, he will kill all of the cubs conceived from the previous one. Which killed a bunch of lion cubs that could have been added to the population. It’s also the same for elephants the loss of an older elephant means leaving male of female youngsters without guidance who will more likely have a negative interaction with human which means more will be killed.

Big game hunting has rules, that people must follow, but many do not because it is poorly regulated. A lion has to be a certain age before you can kill it. That age is 6, because many lions do not breed until they are at the age of six. But the problem with that rule is people can’t tell what age the lion is, until they have actually killed it. Like the case of the lion Cecil. The man who killed Cecil, Walter Palmer, lured Cecil out of a perfected area with a carcass that had been tied to the back of a Jeep. Not only did he kill a lion that was well liked and in a protected area he had failed to obtain the license to kill a lion.

Big game doesn’t have a set rule on how many of one animal can be killed, that means that too many lions and other animals are legally allowed to be killed. If an animal is on the endangered list, then they can’t be hunted but that doesn’t stop people from killing them. For example, the snow leopard is endangered but people still hunt and kill them because it goes back to how rare that animals is and because of the small amount of snow leopard that are left they are now ‘rare’. Many hunters can’t be distinguished from a big game hunter or a poacher or a trophy hunter which means that there are more chances of animal victims.

Big game hunting is morally wrong because people are mostly doing it because they can get something out of it. The money the government in Africa gets from people coming to hunt they say goes to Villegas’s and people who need it, but out of the millions of dollars they get only 3 percent goes back to the people, and the protection areas for the animals. Some of the people who are hunting lions say they are hunting them because they are dangerous and attack humans. But lions are not scared of people because they know that they are bigger and stronger, so if they see a human, they are most likely just going to ignore them. Some people also prolong the hunt by shooting the animal with or something that won’t kill the first and then track them to kill them a few hours later. In the case of the lion Cecil, Walter Palmer shot Cecil with an arrow and tracked him for 40 hours until he finally shot him with a rifle and then proceeded to behead and skin Cecil’s corpse. People are also doing canned hunting, where a captive breed animal, like a lion, is taken from its parent or is taken when they are older and put into an enclosed space for people to hunt. Big game hunting appeals to the lowest aspects of human nature.

“People are just plain evil, for the petty, childish fun of being evil”, – Arthur Chu.

People just see animals as a way of getting more money. Big game hunting should be illegal because it doesn’t only control the animal population it destroys it. People should consider the consequences of killing such beautiful animals, the next time they go hunting.

In 2015, Cecil the Lion, a lion who was famously being studied by the University of Oxford in Zimbabwe, was killed by a hunter in South Africa. The death of the famous lion sparked global outrage on the issue of hunting and if hunting needs to be banned altogether. However, this outcry was just an outburst of emotion, when the real question for the sake of the animals should have been: does hunting actually help the animals? In other words, does hunting animals help protect the natural habitat of the very animals being hunted and keep many species from going extinct? It is important to first establish the types of hunting. In Africa, there is fair chase trophy hunting, where a tourist is aided by a local hunter in the area who will help the tourist track and kill the trophy animal, usually a lion, which can then be taxidermied and sent back to the foreign hunter and home country. However, there is another type of hunting called canned hunting, in which there is a small range on which the chosen animal is put and the foreign hunter can then hunt the animal. This form of hunting is generally frowned upon by every party as it has unsportsmanlike conditions granted to the lions or other animals that are the prey. For example, in canned hunting, the prey may be raised in contact with humans, and this contact makes the prey fear the human hunters less when the time comes for the hunt. The supporters of hunting for conservation believe the hunting industry produces money that not only is used to keep the prey of hunters from going extinct, but some of this revenue goes towards conservation efforts to help preserve the natural habitat from human development. However, the critics of the idea that the hunting of animals helps conservation believe that there is not enough evidence that supports the claim that hunting aids conservation efforts.

Melville Saayman, Petrus van der Merwe, and Andrea Saayman are part of a research group known as TREES, which stands for Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society; this group has the mission of tracking the tourism industry in Africa. The research is done as post-graduate studies at North-West University and is published to help grow the research pool around tourism in Africa. The researchers show in their paper titled ‘The Economic Impact of Trophy Hunting in the South African Wildlife Industry’ just how much money is generated by the trophy hunting industry. The paper’s findings were that around US$341 million was generated by trophy hunting alone in just Africa. This finding shows that the trophy hunting business does bring in a large amount of money, and if something like hunting can bring that amount of money, plenty of people will work to preserve it because their livelihood depends on the fact that there are animals to be hunted and land to hunt on. This also presents a problem, however, because the money produced by the hunting industry came from not only fair chase hunting but also from canned hunting. Canned hunting is immoral and has the possibility of being banned, so the possible fact that many would not allow canned hunting to disappear could cause both legal and ethical problems. Furthermore, there is the possibility that while people try to take advantage of the natural resource, they overdo it and cause the loss of the resource altogether. This possible weakness, however, does bring to mind the argument of Professor Adam Hart. Professor Adam Hart works at the University of Gloucestershire as a professor of science communication and has acquired the Royal Society of Biology’s Science Communicator of the Year Award, which is an award given to researchers for finding new information that can make the public inspired and well informed. He was awarded this prize for his research. Adam Hart argues: “We also need to find ways to ensure animal populations are more valuable alive in the long-term [even if that means sustainable harvesting] than dead in the short-term”. This argument puts the simple idea of ‘it pays it stays’ into more complex language but has the same simple effect of showing that hunting can keep the animals from going extinct because there will be people with money willing to spend it in return for hunting the animals, and one cannot hunt an animal if it no longer exists. However, this argument is weakened because it relies on the number of hunters to stay the same. If the number of hunters suddenly plummets, the amount of money hunting brings in would become significantly less, and hunting may cause more trouble for conservation as it could be used as an excuse to not put a conservation tax in place. This weakness hurts both trophy hunting and fair chase hunting, but it particularly weakens fair chase hunting, as the number of hunters is already dropping at a rate that may prove detrimental to the idea that hunting can fund conservation work.

Critics of the idea that hunting actually helps conservation efforts include Nathan Rott. Nathan Rott is a correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR) and earned the Stone and Holt Weeks Fellowship award in 2010. The Stone and Holt Weeks Fellowship Award is given to up-and-coming journalists and helped provide Nathan Rott with a job at NPR. Nathan has since specialized in environmental issues for his articles. In countries like the U.S., conservation is reliant upon the taxes paid when equipment is bought for hunting and fishing. Some of the critics of hunting for nature conservation want there to be a push for more “general tax money to address the situation” by taxing other outdoor activities, but this is unlikely to happen as most outdoor activities do not require certain licensing that can be taxed. The money that is taxed, however, is responsible for about sixty percent of funding for state wildlife agencies. Many of the hunters that contribute to the sixty percent of funding are steadily approaching the usual cut-off age for hunting, which is sixty-five, and with few young people interested in hunting, a large amount of money that goes into conservation is about to be lost. Jada F. Smith, a writer for The New York Times, wrote: “However, the report [a 25-page U.S. House Committee report, called ‘Missing the Mark’] says, ‘In assessing the flow of trophy hunting revenue to conservation efforts, we found many troubling examples of funds either being diverted from their purpose or not being dedicated to conservation in the first place’”. This shows the concern that critics have about the taxation that supports conservation as the money may not necessarily be going towards the cause it was assigned to, like many taxes. Other critics of hunting for conservation include Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Incorporated. Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Incorporated was founded in San Antonio, Texas, USA, in 1977, but now lies on 212 acres northwest of San Antonio. Their mission is to provide a voice for animals who do not have one, to provide care for animals in need, and to release animals that have been aided and have been deemed able to survive in the wild on their own. Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation believes that hunting methods like canned hunts are not only ethically wrong but also cause different problems because they require exotic animals to be bred just to be hunted later, stating: “The sale of exotic mammals to canned hunts is big business for private breeders, animal dealers, and disreputable game parks and zoos. The overbreeding of captive exotic animals exacerbates the problem [of canned hunting]”. While it is unfortunate that the animals are bred just to be shot and killed later, it does have to be mentioned that although the animals are not in their natural glory, they are not going to go extinct from being bred in this way. This is a possible weakness in the argument because the source is being emotionally affected and this can skew their perspective. The critics of hunting for conservation do not present a replacement for hunting if it was to be banned. This lack of forward thinking is a weakness because it shows, furthermore, that the critics are blinded by emotions, and because if they truly cared for the animals they want to protect, they would find a new activity or source of money that could be used to fund conservation, but instead, they just demand that hunting is banned altogether.

In my opinion, the issue of conservation is an incredibly complicated topic, but I do believe that hunting, both fair chase and canned hunting, do have a positive impact on conservation efforts. Fair chase hunting brings in enough money and awareness to conservation that it is worthwhile tactic conservation. Although canned hunting is obviously not the dream solution, I have to put my emotions aside and just look at the practical effects of the industry. In my eyes, the canned hunting industry is no more unethical than the meat industry as it purposely breeds animals for slaughter, the canned hunting industry just has a flashy idea of pride for killing the animals where it obviously should not because the animal cannot escape. However, like the meat industry, the canned hunting industry does bring in money, and this will incentivize people to keep certain animals from going extinct. While the animals from this industry will most likely not have the former glory of their free ancestors, the fact that their species still exists will need to suffice. Hunting should not be the only avenue for conservation to gain money, but because of its effectiveness, it needs to stay a part of conservation funding. Furthermore, I believe that if there is an industry that holds both the ideas of sport and tourism, in one it will be successful and hunting happens to be just that. Hunting does of course have a finite amount of money that can be used for taxation and conservation, that is why I do also believe that other avenues for taxation directly for the use of conservation should be looked into, such as an extra sales tax. That being said, if there is an extra tax placed on the public for conservation, the funds would have to be looked after closely because I believe that funds for nature could be misplaced or misused easily.