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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Group C argued for hunting. Group C sates that hunting is a necessary component of the life cycle of animals for multiple reasons. One major reason they pointed out was that there is a great economic benefit gained from hunters. Hunters and anglers spend a lot of money on licenses, supplies, and trips associated with this form of recreation. Additionally, when hunters go on hunting trips, they have to spend money for lodging, food, gas, and sometimes out of state tags. All of these expenditures combined generate income for local communities around hunting areas. Other reasons for hunting to continue include population management, and human health risks. If populations of animals such as deer continue to rise, vehicle collisions is a large health issue and could increase if hunting was banned, additionally wildlife transmitted diseases could go up. The final reason Group C mentioned for recreational hunting, was simply the tradition behind it. It is something the human population has partook on for thousands of yeas and is very heavily relied on in some cultures.
ReplyDelete---Kirsten Dobson
4. Team C argues for hunting. They take all possible arguments against hunting and refute them with facts and experts on the subject. Some of their key arguments includes that hunting does not promote violence. In a study, delinquent boys were taken on a two week survival camping trip. A year later, 85% of the boys did not have any run-ins with the law. The study implies that the boys learned respect for life through nature. Another argument is hunting controls the population of white-tailed deer. While nature will limit their population to some extent, it is only after they have exhausted all their supplies and resources. Also, Team C says it is more humane to kill an animal without pain and suffering through a single bullet than a slow and painful death through starvation. This is one of my favorite positions in the debate because of the facts they include and not opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it is necessary to control populations, aren't we the reason they need to be controlled in the first place? By eliminating natural predators, we have created a situation in which we must assume the responsibility of managing population growth.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues for hunting. They say that hunting has many benefits for a wide variety of people. According to group C hunting provides major benefits for the economy, the health of the animals, the traditions of our past, and even the mental state of humans. I agree with this group. Hunting is not only something I enjoy, it is something that is necessary. I have seen firsthand what can happen to out of control deer herds. On a property I recently started to hunt, no hunting has taken place for many years. Since the deer lack the predators that used to control them, the population has gotten out of control. I watched as deer filed into a small (less than an acre) fescue field. Many of these deer were malnourished or had physical defects. Hunting is necessary for the health of the animals, for our economy, and for experience.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Estienne
Group C argues that hunting is not only a necessary aspect of life but a tradition that has been a part of the human existence forever. I agree with group c as a hunter because historically, my family has been hunting as a way of life for hundreds of years.The tradition has been passed down through my family and has brought many people together. The idea of hunting may sound bad but it does help the environment in ways that you might not see directly. In a way, hungting helps the animal populations becuase over population can be very harmful.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Mullaney
You talk alot about the science of why hunting is good but what about the moral side of it? Most people that oppose hunting oppose it because they believe that these animals have a right to live. These animals should not be shot down in their prime just because a human gets a thrill out of going into the woods with a gun. What gives humans the right to decide which species of animal is ok to shoot and which is not?
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that hunting is a necessity to our culture. That we are the reason the populations have grown out of control and we need to accept responsibility. They also argue that it is a important cultural aspect that has been around for years. They use a lot of fact to defend why hunting is good, yet they do not cover the moral side of it which is the reason for people being against it.
ReplyDeleteGroup C makes good scientific points in the support of hunting. Hunting reduces stress, promotes a respect for life and nature, and helps the environment in numerous ways. While the moral aspect of hunting is barely touched they do mention some facts about how the hunting teaches a greater respect for life. Also, many hunters are just not slaying the deer, the eat the meat or donate it to feed the homeless.
ReplyDeleteTheir argument is that it is a safe, fun, unifying, traditional way to manage an ecosystem and bond with nature and your peers. That hunting accidents are getting less frequent all the time and that hunting actually benefits most ecosystems. They explain that hunting is actually safer for the human population as well since it keeps herds down it doesn’t allow them to become overrun and have another force have to balance the herd, like disease, disease that can then spread to humans. This is a fine argument but what about the non-consumptive natural resource user the part of the population that wants to go camping, hiking, biking, etc. and don’t want to have to worry about some hunter being out there waiting for their shot. How can these two separate groups share the same land and use them for different purposes.
ReplyDeleteI am also in favor that hunting is needed in our society. I agree with all of your arguments made in above in your position. Two of the points that you made I found very interesting. First, I never even thought about how wild game is healthier for the human body rather than food coming from animals who have been pumped with all kinds of antibiotics and medicines. Second, I was unaware of the program 'Hunters for the Hungry.' From what you explained above, I think that is a great program for the needy and the homeless. All in all, I enjoyed reading your paper and thought that you presented your position very well.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for hunting rests upon several assertions. The economic value of hunting consumers, the ecological benefits of population management, the nutritional value of wild game consumption, and the cultural value of tradition are all cited. The risks of uncontrolled deer populations are repeatedly referenced (reasonably) but little mention is made of hunting for other animals. African trophy animals are mentioned with respect to the economics of hunting tourism, but the concepts of beneficent hunting of threatened species or of using lions for food are absurd. Would hunting be as acceptable if not for deer overpopulation? It is doubtful. Further, the unspoken contradiction in the expense of the hunting industry versus using game to feed the poor lends itself to the point that efficient alternatives exist. Lastly, are all forms of hunting (e.g., aerial wolf hunting) valid?
ReplyDeleteGroup C provides many good points supporting hunting. They show that there is a great economic benefit to both hunters and the local economy based on licenses, meat sales, food, travel, etc. It is also extremely important for population management. They use the example of deer being a nuisance for drivers accounting for 1.5 vehicle collisions per year ($1.1 billion in damage). It also helps the spread of disease. Hunting is also considered a rite of passage for some cultures.
ReplyDeleteI believe Group C does a good job at defending their side of the debate, but I believe they could stand to use for statistics from other populations of animals. They seem to focus mainly on white-tailed deer, but they could also include game birds and other mammals which may not have some of the same issues as vehicle collisions and present an entirely different argument.
I seem to agree with everyone else here, where is the moral side? Yet besides that, excellent job, the overall number of facts is huge benefit.
ReplyDeleteThis group is pro-hunting. They list many positive results of hunting such as respect for life, population control, and human health. The statistics from State Farm about car collisions with deer strengthen their argument. I definitely liked the results from the young kids in trouble that were taught to survive and hunt and then stayed out of trouble from then on. That is awesome. Also the argument that animals are given a quicker death by the bullet rather than starvation is fairly strong, but there are many times when human error enters the equation and the shot taken isn’t accurate and the animal can possibly suffer a great deal.
ReplyDeleteGroup C provides a great argument for the science behind hunting. I think many of those points alone are good reasons to hunt. One of the better reasons to hunt and fish is the money it provides for management and conservation of fisheries and wildlife.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that there are several positives associated with hunting. Hunting generates revenue fro wildlife conservation and also for the communities that support hunting. Another positive they mention is population control. There are several species that would face density dependent mortality if hunters did not thin them. They also discussed the sense of identity that some people feel is tied to hunting. I agree that hunting, when regulated, is more of a positive than a negative.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that hunting is basically not as bad as anti-hunters perceive it to be. Some of their examples for their argument are somewhat right depending on the type of hunt. Most of the time there are hunting clubs for fellowship and family tradition. Then, there are farmers that get special permission to hunt animals for crop damage. Therefore, all of the money spent for hunting is necessary.
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea, I truly appreciate your opinion when it comes for groups hunting. hunting rests
ReplyDeletesend it when ya have to shoot the deer
ReplyDeletejust pull the trigger and get some meat
Delete