Animal poaching is when an animal is killed illegally. This usually happens when an animal has something that is considered valuable. It is a major problem at the moment, in particular because it causes the extinction or endangerment of many animals. In May 2019, 1 million plants and animals are threatened with extinction because of humans (poaching, pollution, global warming, etc.). Some people see poaching as a way to control animal overpopulation and conserve land for other things that will benefit us financially, but they only use it as a disguise to sell on the black market and gain personal wealth. Several articles explain both sides, I found sources from National Geo, outsideonline, articles.aplus and CBS. Poaching animals is the same as killing a person. It is still a life form and does not pose a threat to us. It would be different if you were defending yourself against an attack. Humans aren't hunted for sport, so animals shouldn't be either. Food chains take care of all this, but animal poaching gets in the way. They kill both predators and prey, which causes an imbalance, so I say stop. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In the first article, Wes Siler basically states that there are two main considerations that add up to shrinking elephant masses, poaching, and environmental misfortune. It is estimated that illegally traded ivory could be worth up to $1 billion each year and up to 23,000 elephants are poached each year. It's amazing and dangerous, but the greatest danger elephants and other huge creatures face comes from ever-increasing human progress, cities, streets and agribusiness destroying their living space. Individuals who depend on agriculture and dairy farming value the land and the crops that grow on it. This implies that the elephants grazing these lands represent a risk for businesses. Interestingly, game hunting can neutralize both natural environmental misfortune and poaching by giving elephants real financial value. Elephant chases cost an awful lot of dollars; this benefit diverts creatures from an irritation into a meaningful product. If a landowner has more to gain from elephant hunts than from steer farming, he will allow more elephants to remain wild and will also have the motivation to protect these creatures from poaching. Many landowners where elephants are pursued hire security groups equipped to protect the creatures from poachers. Now to counter Lisa Winter's article explains that every healthy biological system is adjusted by the natural way of life. If a predator is pushed out of the picture, the creatures it normally eats will increase their numbers at an unsustainable rate. When this happens, life forms further down the evolved lifestyle can be eliminated, influencing vegetation, which is likely to cause avalanches, disintegration, or undesirable soil. When the environment is thrown into confusion, different animals and even people in the territory will feel the impacts as they become more eager to farm or hunt for food. The untamed agents of life who are paid to ensure that these creaturescarry out an extremely risky activity, with many dedicated workers massacred by poachers every year. Many officers do not have the tools to properly carry out their responsibilities, which is a major problem, given the vastness of the parks and the harsh climate. Lack of spending plans means they are not consistently provided with appropriate boots and other gear or experienced broad enough preparation to best secure the creatures. Although some parks use tunnels and other innovative methods to track and arrest poachers, all officers should have the clearest opportunity for success. While it might almost seem reasonable that some would be nervous enough to take up poaching for a paycheck, it's better for the neighborhood economy if the creatures stay alive. Parks with thriving creature populations may attract many more visitors, which will require enlisting more local people. For example, an elephant killed for its tusks will fetch around $21,000, but if that elephant equivalent were kept alive and part of an ecotourism fascination, it could attract more than $1.6 million throughout of his life. This implies that it is many times more rewarding to secure an elephant than to kill it. Many creatures are poached due to a confusing belief in some districts that a specific piece of a creature, for example a rhino horn or a tiger bristle, has unique restorative properties that can either be a sexual stimulant, or even a solution against malignancy. Obviously, there is no logical evidence to support these cases, implying that these creatures are being eradicated without explanation. Elephant tusks and hides are merely ornamental, which is a terrible reason why there is also increasing danger from creatures that focus on their meat. Bushmeat, as it is called, can occur on secure land, using illegal strategies and draining creatures in extremely unsustainable ways. Progressives are trying to give bushmeat options, allowing everyone to live, while protecting creatures. In conclusion, she goes on to say that poaching is the result of human interest, period. Once there is no longer a commercial opportunity for these creature parts, the killings will stop. While it's a great idea to donate money to conservation groups like WildAid or safe parks like Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, there are also different things everyone can do . I have to agree with Lisa although Silers had valid points; poaching animals is the same as killing a person. It is still a life form and does not pose a threat to us. It would be different if you were defending yourself against an attack. Humans aren't hunted for sport, so animals shouldn't be either. Food chains take care of all this, but animal poaching gets in the way. They kill both predators and prey, which causes an imbalance, so I say stop. It turns out that the government controls everything we do, so if overpopulation was a problem, there is a better way to care for animals. As putting them in a place to be seen, as Winter's said, is more beneficial than just killing them when they are exposed. In addition, they do not make.