Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Pro-hunting position paper
The problem with hunting is that some people do not think it is ethical, proper, and necessary. Most people feel this way about hunting without knowing the facts about it, and they object to it on the grounds that an animal that is pleasing to look at is being killed. The benefits of hunting are often overlooked by anti-hunting advocates. This paper seeks to explain the reasons behind hunting and refute the arguments made by the opposition.
Hunting is a necessary component of the life cycle of animals for multiple reasons. One reason is the economic benefit that is gained from hunters. Hunters and anglers spend a lot of money on licenses, supplies, and trips associated with this form of recreation. When hunters go on hunting trips, they have to spend money for lodging, food, gas, and sometimes out of state tags. These expenditures all generate income for the local communities near hunting and recreation areas. The fees for licenses help the government put money back into parks and game preserves which are used by both hunters and non-hunters. Hunting is also a huge source of income in other countries. Currently twenty-three African countries allow trophy hunting; they receive over two hundred million dollars from tourist to hunt lions, elephants, rhinos, and other large game (Pickrell, 2007).
Another reason hunting is needed, and probably the most important reason, is for population management. “When you’re dealing with free-ranging animals that can move in and out over a large landscape, the only tool available now is hunting,” said Paul D. Curtis, a Cornell professor and extension wildlife specialist (Herb, 2009). The white-tail deer population is a great example of the need for hunters. Deer are becoming overpopulated and are a nuisance for a lot of people, especially drivers. According to statistics from State Farm Insurance, an estimated 1.5 million vehicles collide with deer every year in the United States, causing $1.1 billion in property damage (Parkhurst, 2009 and Roos, 2008).
Another problem with vehicle collisions is the health issue for both the deer and the drivers which would increase if hunting was banned. Wildlife transmitted diseases such as Lyme disease would become more common without hunting to control the spread of disease. The best, and most efficient, method to controlling these diseases is through recreational hunting (Glazov, 2008). It has been suggested that the best way to control Lyme disease from spreading is by bringing down the deer population from around sixty per square mile to about ten per square mile (Stafford, 2003, p. 46). Also, a lot of people want to eat healthier. Wild game is a lot healthier and safer to eat then an animal that was pumped full of antibiotics and raised to be slaughtered.
Some other reasons to promote hunting are because of the tradition behind it. Hunting has been done for thousands of years and in some cultures it is like a rite of passage for young boys to become men. Once a boy slayed his beast he was considered old enough and brave enough to have a family that he could provide for and protect. Also, the aesthetic value of hunting is needed by a lot of people, especially in these tough economic times. Hunting provides an escape for people from the stress of daily life. Getting out and spending time with nature beneficial to a lot of people, and the experience of the hunt provides a connection with nature that cannot be gained from other sources of entertainment. If the hunter does not want the meat from a kill, then they can donate it to Hunters for the Hungry. This is a program that enables hunters to take the animal they killed to a local food bank so it can be used to help feed homeless people. Not only is hunting beneficial for a number of reasons, but it is also part of the normal food chain. Hunting is a form of predation that usually causes a quick, humane death. On the other hand, an animal dying of starvation or disease would have to endure a long, painful death. For these reasons, hunting should continue to be a valuable part of our society.
The other side of this debate may argue that hunting is unsafe, unnecessary, and promotes violence. Since 1988, when Virginia made it mandatory for twelve to fifteen year-olds and first time hunters to attend safety classes, there has been a twenty five percent reduction in hunting accidents. In fact, the leading cause of injury in outdoor activities is snowboarding (26%), followed by sledding (11 %), and hiking (6 %) (Associated Press, 2008). Due to the high animal populations, especially deer, it seems more dangerous to drive down the interstate than it does to go hunting. There is a higher chance of getting injured by hitting a deer going 70 miles per hour than by going hunting. . Another point they may try to make is that it is unnecessary, because they believe that populations that are not hunted will be limited by nature. Although this is true to some extent, the population will rise continuously for a long time until the animals have consumed all of the available resources in that ecosystem. Once this happens, there will be a massive population and community crash because the large number of deer will all be slowly starving to death, and the other animals in the area will be affected by the lack of resources as well. Some people feel that hunting promotes violence and will have a negative impact on society. Hunting actually relieves the stress of everyday life and promotes better mental health. Dr. Jim Rose, a neuropsychologist, showed in a study that hunting causes men to be less violent. An example he uses is a program in Idaho where young male delinquents are taken on a two week survival course where they must hunt and trap for their food. One year after their experience eighty five percent of the boys have had no problems with the law, and it is believed that their connection with nature and the taking of an animal’s life for food gave them a respect for life (Eaton, 2004).
There are many more positive aspects to hunting than there are negative aspects. . Hunting is needed and takes place in every lifecycle. It should not matter if it is a wolf killing a deer or a human killing a deer. Both scenarios result in the same ending, so there is no reason to stop humans from fulfilling their role as a top predator in the food chain.
Hunting is a necessary component of the life cycle of animals for multiple reasons. One reason is the economic benefit that is gained from hunters. Hunters and anglers spend a lot of money on licenses, supplies, and trips associated with this form of recreation. When hunters go on hunting trips, they have to spend money for lodging, food, gas, and sometimes out of state tags. These expenditures all generate income for the local communities near hunting and recreation areas. The fees for licenses help the government put money back into parks and game preserves which are used by both hunters and non-hunters. Hunting is also a huge source of income in other countries. Currently twenty-three African countries allow trophy hunting; they receive over two hundred million dollars from tourist to hunt lions, elephants, rhinos, and other large game (Pickrell, 2007).
Another reason hunting is needed, and probably the most important reason, is for population management. “When you’re dealing with free-ranging animals that can move in and out over a large landscape, the only tool available now is hunting,” said Paul D. Curtis, a Cornell professor and extension wildlife specialist (Herb, 2009). The white-tail deer population is a great example of the need for hunters. Deer are becoming overpopulated and are a nuisance for a lot of people, especially drivers. According to statistics from State Farm Insurance, an estimated 1.5 million vehicles collide with deer every year in the United States, causing $1.1 billion in property damage (Parkhurst, 2009 and Roos, 2008).
Another problem with vehicle collisions is the health issue for both the deer and the drivers which would increase if hunting was banned. Wildlife transmitted diseases such as Lyme disease would become more common without hunting to control the spread of disease. The best, and most efficient, method to controlling these diseases is through recreational hunting (Glazov, 2008). It has been suggested that the best way to control Lyme disease from spreading is by bringing down the deer population from around sixty per square mile to about ten per square mile (Stafford, 2003, p. 46). Also, a lot of people want to eat healthier. Wild game is a lot healthier and safer to eat then an animal that was pumped full of antibiotics and raised to be slaughtered.
Some other reasons to promote hunting are because of the tradition behind it. Hunting has been done for thousands of years and in some cultures it is like a rite of passage for young boys to become men. Once a boy slayed his beast he was considered old enough and brave enough to have a family that he could provide for and protect. Also, the aesthetic value of hunting is needed by a lot of people, especially in these tough economic times. Hunting provides an escape for people from the stress of daily life. Getting out and spending time with nature beneficial to a lot of people, and the experience of the hunt provides a connection with nature that cannot be gained from other sources of entertainment. If the hunter does not want the meat from a kill, then they can donate it to Hunters for the Hungry. This is a program that enables hunters to take the animal they killed to a local food bank so it can be used to help feed homeless people. Not only is hunting beneficial for a number of reasons, but it is also part of the normal food chain. Hunting is a form of predation that usually causes a quick, humane death. On the other hand, an animal dying of starvation or disease would have to endure a long, painful death. For these reasons, hunting should continue to be a valuable part of our society.
The other side of this debate may argue that hunting is unsafe, unnecessary, and promotes violence. Since 1988, when Virginia made it mandatory for twelve to fifteen year-olds and first time hunters to attend safety classes, there has been a twenty five percent reduction in hunting accidents. In fact, the leading cause of injury in outdoor activities is snowboarding (26%), followed by sledding (11 %), and hiking (6 %) (Associated Press, 2008). Due to the high animal populations, especially deer, it seems more dangerous to drive down the interstate than it does to go hunting. There is a higher chance of getting injured by hitting a deer going 70 miles per hour than by going hunting. . Another point they may try to make is that it is unnecessary, because they believe that populations that are not hunted will be limited by nature. Although this is true to some extent, the population will rise continuously for a long time until the animals have consumed all of the available resources in that ecosystem. Once this happens, there will be a massive population and community crash because the large number of deer will all be slowly starving to death, and the other animals in the area will be affected by the lack of resources as well. Some people feel that hunting promotes violence and will have a negative impact on society. Hunting actually relieves the stress of everyday life and promotes better mental health. Dr. Jim Rose, a neuropsychologist, showed in a study that hunting causes men to be less violent. An example he uses is a program in Idaho where young male delinquents are taken on a two week survival course where they must hunt and trap for their food. One year after their experience eighty five percent of the boys have had no problems with the law, and it is believed that their connection with nature and the taking of an animal’s life for food gave them a respect for life (Eaton, 2004).
There are many more positive aspects to hunting than there are negative aspects. . Hunting is needed and takes place in every lifecycle. It should not matter if it is a wolf killing a deer or a human killing a deer. Both scenarios result in the same ending, so there is no reason to stop humans from fulfilling their role as a top predator in the food chain.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Our group has been researching our topic for the past few weeks, and are getting ready to come together to begin our outline, research paper, and power point presentation. And in the next week we will be rehearsing our debate and anticipating what are opponents will use as an argument against what we feel is a scientifically backed sport (when done responsibly ).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)