Big game hunting is a controversial topic that has been debated for quite some time now. With the recent killing of Cecil, the lion, it has become more in the public eye. I am very interested in this topic because I feel it necessary for others to understand the immorality of killing endangered animals for the sake of pride and a feeling of accomplishment. No dollar amount should be placed on an animal that there is not an abundance of like lions, rhinos, elephants and many others. Although I have never been game hunting or immediately know of anyone who participates in it, my personal experience comes from the articles I have read and the news that I have witnessed on the topic. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have read many articles about the act of big game hunting and what motivated people to do it. I also understand what happens in the big game hunting business. I understand the amount of work that they put into such a trivial sport. The fact that I have done research and have acquired hard facts about big game hunting makes me qualifies to write about this topic. 

In the first article that I read, Big Game Hunting by Maria Trimarchi, the author lets readers know about the rules and regulations of big game hunting specifically in the United Sates and Africa. In the US it is legal on privately and publically owned properties but only during certain seasons. In Africa the time constraints aren't as strict but the money that it costs to hunt larger animals is very high. This article mainly wants people to think about the morality of killing wild animals and putting a price on them. Although it does not lean majorly in one way or the other, this article talks openly about why people are for or against big game hunting. Maria Trimarchi received her bachelor's degree in English form Skidmore College. Even though she did not study big game hunting in college, her degree in English proves that she is has competence in the field of research and gathering information. Trimarchi does a great job of leaving any bias or opinion leaning towards one side out of the article. After reading the article, readers have no idea which side she is on; whether she is for or against big game hunting. This article was published in 2008 which makes it credible, but not as credible as if it had been written at a more recent date. Laws involving big game hunting may have changed or it may have become unpopular. For the purpose of this topic though, not much has changed so it is still credible. 

In the article, No, Big Game Hunting Does Not Secretly Help Conservation Efforts by Nikki Ekstein, an opinion is clearly stated and elaborated on. She talks about how people who are in favor of big game hunting claim that it is helping conservation. To this idea, she immediately disagrees by telling how much of the money acquired for big hunts actually goes to conservation, which is a small fraction. Ekstein clearly wrote this article with the intent to persuade peoples idea in her direction of thinking. The fact that she put so much of her own opinion in this might turn off some readers who just want to hear the solid facts of the topic. To gain back the interest of those people, she inserts counter arguments and then tells why they are not valid arguments. This is very effective when trying to persuade people who think the opposite that they should agree with another way of thinking. Nikki Ekstein is an associate editor at Travel + Leisure. This distinction makes her credible because she works with these topics everyday on her job. She has written a lot of articles on this subject and as a result has gained a vast amount of knowledge in regards to big game hunting. This makes her opinion that much more valid because she knows a lot of the information that has to do with big game hunting. 

In the final article that I read, Big Game Hunting is also Big Business for Wealthy Few, the author, Liam Stack discussed the different view points that people have on the topic of big game hunting. He highlighted the recent killing of the lion Cecil in Zimbabwe and how that sparked the controversy. Stack uses this informative article to outline the reasons why people are for and against big game hunting without involving his own opinion in it. Stack also points out that there are pros and cons for big game hunting. It is a big source of revenue for the hunting business but at the same time it greatly upsets conservationist groups like the Humane Society. Stack is a writer for the New York Times and formerly wrote for an assortment of other companies, witch makes him extremely credible. This makes him credible on the topic because to have an article featured in the New York Times, the author must have an extreme amount of knowledge on the topic that they are writing about. 

Big game hunting is an extremely arguable and controversial topic because one could argue how immoral it is, or they could argue the exact opposite and talk about how much money it brings in to contrived that participate in big game hunting. In the second article I read, by Nikki Stein, she directly states that big game hunting is not helping conservation efforts. In the third article Stack states that the business who participate in bug game hunting believe that it is helping conservation. The different perspectives make me want to find out more information to see which side is actually correct. This may alter my research question by making me focus on just the effect of big game hunting on conservation and not just the wealthy people who participate in it. 
