How Selective Culling Works

Let's go back to the TV for a moment. As you watch your program, in awe of the circle of life, do you call the morals of the lion into question? Do you judge the lion for killing the stray antelope? Probably not -- and don't feel bad, most people wouldn't. While the image of the mauling may disgust you a little, you don't ha­ve any real qualms with the lion. You just write it off as a part of life. Here, the lion used selective culling to lock down its dinner, and hunters have been known to use this method as well.

­The biggest argument for hunting is that the sport controls overpopulated species that are running out of the natural resources they require to survive. By killing some, hunters make life easier on the others by reducing the need for competition. Now, throw selective culling into the hunting mix.

Many hunters think of selective culling as a humane way to hunt. They aren't killing animals that are strong and in the prime of their lives, but weak ones who probably struggle to get by. If they're diseased, they could be in a lot of pain with no chance of alleviation. Selective culling allows these animals a quick death, as opposed to what might be a long and painful natural death.

By killing the weakest link, some hunters believe that they've helped the herd by leaving it stronger than they found it. The weak member is often easier to track, allowing practice for new or unsure hunters [source: Crusader Safaris]. This also helps make an accurate shot less of a feat, producing a clean, quick kill.

Some say that selective culling counteracts trophy hunting, which takes a majority of males. It often targets females, rebalancing the species [source: Crusader Safaris].

But is this fair? Just because the lion did it doesn't necessarily mean it's OK for humans. Read ahead to consider why others think the practice is wrong.

The documentary is about to end, and that lion is looking pretty full. Again, yo­u don't have any hard feelings -- hey, a lion's gotta do what a lion's gotta do. But say your next-door neighbor goes out and shoots that sweet doe that's been feeding around your subdivision for years. He can't exactly make the argument that he had to kill her for meat. It might be hard to justify that kill, now that the food chain isn't playing much of a role.

­There isn't necessarily a strong opposition to selective culling as much as there's an opposition to hunting in general. The act used to be a necessity, as it provided the food that humans needed to survive. But these days, most people don't need to hunt.

At least hunters still have that conservation argument to back them up, right? Well, maybe not. Some experts and animal advocates see hunting as an unnecessary means of population control. They say that when left alone, deer and many other animal species can regulate their own population through natural selection [source: BBC News]. The lion preying on the weak antelope is an example of nature taking a natural course. There might be increased competition for natural resources, but that will simply lead to the survival of the fittest (which is basically nature's version of culling).

So, to cull or not too cull -- do you have an answer? At least now you have the facts. For more information, visit the links on the next page.