Ban on importation of elephant trophies should stand, Teen Panelist says
On Nov. 15, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would release the ban on the importation of elephant hunt trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia. On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced the reversal of this decision until more facts are collected.
This issue has caused protest from animal-rights groups, conservatives, and even some celebrities. For example, talk show host and stand-up comedian Ellen DeGeneres tried to spread awareness and concern for the African elephant population by posting a tweet with the hashtag #BeKindToElephants.
This ban was established in 2014 under Barack Obama’s presidency because the “Fish and Wildlife Service found that the hunts did not contribute to the survival of the species,” according to National Geographic.
When this law was created, people hoped it would decrease the risk of elephants’ extinction and boost the African elephant population, since they have been listed as a threatened species since 1978.
In the early part of the 20th Century, African elephant populations reached between three and five million. Today, there are only around 415,000, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature.
So, why does the government feel the need to suddenly change course? Releasing this ban would only increase the amount of danger facing this species.
The government's reasoning is money paid for permits and hunts will go back in to the conservation of elephants and other African animals. Hunters from across the globe pay tens of thousands of dollars — sometimes more — to go on a trophy hunt.
Some may believe this will be an effective solution because trophy hunters could bring in a large sum of money to assist in the conservation of these species.
However, I think by giving American trophy hunters more access to this sport, then we will harm the species more than conserve it.
The United States government is claiming to preserve a species by giving permits to those who want to kill that same species. What will be left to preserve if they continue to allow others to hunt these animals?
I think the money should be used in a different way. Instead of having wealthy individuals pay to hunt a species, they should donate their money directly into the conservation of these animals if, of course, they are truly hunting to preserve this species.
I do not agree with the decision to lift this ban. I believe an endangered species should not be hunted for pleasure or bragging rights. These unique animals should not be threatened because someone with money decided to decorate their home.
Others share the same point of view. Aine Brady is a hunter and student at Charles M. Russell High School.
She believes it does not make sense to hunt an animal in an effort to conserve it. “It doesn’t make sense,” she said. “I hunt because we need the meat, and it’s fun, but I wouldn’t hunt if we didn’t use the whole animal. Then we are just taking innocent creatures and killing them for no reason.”
“There’s definitely a different way of solving the issue,” she added. One of her ideas included fundraising for the elephants.
If we allow people to hunt these magnificent creatures, then we will be responsible for the extinction of the largest mammal walking the Earth.
Grace Carr, a sophomore at C.M. Russell High who hunts, writes for the Tribune Teen Panel.