On a point of view, conservationists believe that trophy hunting contributes to conservation efforts by providing funds for wildlife management and local communities.
I believe there are ethical and legal questions to be answered in this discussion. First, in which country is the activity being carried out? The legislation may or may not allow this activity (for example, trophy hunting is prohibited in Brazil). Second, are there basic ethical principles of welfare at the time of slaughter? Weapon used, age and sex of the animal... What is the fate of the slaughtered animal and the revenue generated from the slaughter? The resource should be used to maintain the local environmental balance, and the slaughtered animal should be used to the maximum extent possible, otherwise the activity fails in its environmental responsibility. This discussion is extensive, complex and permeates technical and moral aspects that should be exhaustively discussed, because no animal, wild or domestic, should be slaughtered without a very clear purpose and without the minimum respect it deserves.
It is argued that any conservation strategy involving the deliberate killing of wildlife must ensure that the purpose is clearly defined, the impact minimized, and the benefits equitably distributed. Without strict adherence to these standards, trophy hunting is at risks of losing its legitimacy as a conservation tool. This perspective aligns with a broader ecological ethic that no wild or domestic animal should be slaughtered without a defined conservation or community benefit, and always with due moral consideration.
- Badges
- Science topic