In reality, canned hunting is trophy hunting. A canned hunt is a kind of hunt in which a hunting agency or regulating body virtually guarantees the hunter a kill. The main premise of the activity is that either a hunting agency or a private person, who is hosting the hunt, captures an animal and releases it in a largely enclosed area for the hunter to pursue. For the hunter’s convenience, the enclosed space is often a small, fenced-in area.
Naturally, canned hunting has raised a variety of ethical concerns. The debate and opposition to canned hunting have gotten increasingly loud over the years. This is understandable, as the problem with canned hunt is one that is more focused on animal cruelty than any other kind of game. The animal is caught and “canned,” eliminating its chance of survival at birth. Many people in the hunting world find this kind of overly simplified hunting to be divisive, especially those who value the delicate balance of nature in and of itself.
Because of the criticism, the United States really has a fixed line of legislation surrounding canned huntx. The United States declared in the Sportsman Hunting Act of 2005 that anyone who transfers an exotic animal for this hunting shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than one year. The emotion is still strong even though the punishments are not particularly severe. However, because the US government does not clearly define what a “exotic animal” is, there is some ambiguity among canned hunters.
The criticism of canned hunting is rather clear-cut. Animal rights organizations assert that hunting is harsh to animals, and while they oppose all forms of hunting, their argument gains some strength when it is supported by other hunting organizations. Some hunting organizations contend that the concept of “fair chase” or “fair catch” is lost when hunting is canned. In other words, hunting organizations frequently assert that the hunt itself is an adventure in and of itself. Without the hunt, hunting devolves into a brutal form of killing. These hunting organizations contend that canned hunting only strips away all aspects of hunting’s capacity for survival and reduces it to its most animalistic level.
Naturally, the North American Humane Society is another opponent of canned hunting. They contend that canned hunting promotes cruelty to animals and is an example of cruelty to animals. According to the Humane Society, the hunted animal has virtually no chance of escaping and is treated by the hunter and the hunting party as a victim of terrorism. The psychological effects of being held prisoner and then hunted while doing so torture the animal to the point of near-torture.
Current events contain a number of occurrences that illustrate canned hunting. The vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, is believed to like canned hunting. According to reports, Cheney once bagged over 70 ringneck pheasants during a hunt in which the pheasants were captured and afterwards released at Cheney’s desire in a specific location. Of course, the shooting of Harry Whittington was probably the most well-known Dick Cheney canned hunting episode. However, as Cheney is renowned for a certain amount of vagueness, it is unknown if he has any moral concerns to this type of hunting.
In America, canned hunting is a subject of intense debate and criticism. Even among hunters, it is not at all regarded positively and is actually very embarrassed. Canned hunting often exemplifies all that is wrong with human meddling on its most cruel and fundamental level as the hunting community tends to advance and allow nature to work on its own terms within their bounds. Hunting with a can isn’t really hunting at all; it’s just a cruel game of capture and murder where the animal has no chance to escape.