Tweet
Doing a persuasive essay for school about the problems represented by not allowing hunting. I want to there to be serious answers here so anyone have any ideas as to what disallowing hunting might help?
-
-
muskiemaster
You want a persuasive essay for school about the problems represented by not allowing hunting, well by golly here it is!
It’s so hot, not even Field and Stream would dare touch it!!!
WIMPS!
One of the biggest screw ups Government has ever done!!
Read these links four links all connected about what happened to Kaibab
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/kaibab.html
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story1.html
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story2.html
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story3.html
-
Do you mean like an increase in auto insurance, because of all the animal/auto crashes.
Mass die off because of over population.
Mass die off due to illness(C.W.D.,Blue tonge(?),Etc.
I hope you ment to support hunting.Comment
-
Between Big O and Clay... you should be able to write two papers.Comment
-
Let's face it, animal populations are a natural resource that we as humans rely on more than many care to think. We live in a world where we must share our environment with all creatures that inhabit it. Without the animals we so eagerly hunt we would suffer. But with these same animals overpopulating and dying off, we as well as the animals themselves would suffer greater. If considering the option of hands off population control, consider it useless. Our fragile ecosystem is now dependent upon us sportsmen to maintain animal population levels. The beautiful thing about it is the respect we have as sportsmen for our quarry and the environment they inhabit. We benefit from the sport and the bounty we obtain. I once wrote a paper on this very same topic, I could literally go on for days.Comment
-
In the majority of the country natural large predators are essentially extinct.
This means that nothing is regulating the big game populations.
Hunters don't regulate populations like predators do, but we are a heck of a lot better than nothing.
Without hunting or predators, the big game populations would go through dramatic cycles. Their population gets enormous, disease spreads, they overgraze all the foliage, and thousands of them die of starvation. (See clay's Kiabab example) Since there is no regulation of the population eventually it would start growing and the cycle would start all over again.
However, in places where natural predator populations are in place (Alaska and some parts of the Northern Rockies are the only places in the US that come to mind) this is not true. The predators regulate game species much better than we hunters do. When Nature is intact hunters are not needed at all.
Nature handled itself perfectly fine for the 4.5 billion years before we showed up. It is only because we mucked things up that we now need to step in and regulate. It is important to point out things like this in papers so that you don't get called out on them.
That being said, even in places with natural predator populations, hunting is still valuable. It is a time honored cultural, and even spiritual tradition. Most people don't appreciate the fact that an animal had to give its life so that they can have their cheeseburger.
Hunters are intimately connected to this reality of life, it makes us more thankful for what we have and more appreciative of the sacrifices that were made to get it.
We'd love to read your paper if you want to post it when you're done!Comment
-
As stated above, an increase in animal/auto collisions is inevitable, along with an increase in animal/human conflict in general. Aside from that, Animal populations not controlled, either through predation or hunting, will literally eat themselves out of house and home, depleting their habitat, which eventually will lead to starvation or at the least malnutrition and disease. You could also mention the economic impact. This is much broader than one might think. Aside from liscense revenue, you have literally billions of dollars spent anually on hunting related products. This is not considering money spent on gas, lodging, food, etc. Hunters support the local economies in many repressed areas. The impact a total hunting ban would have is unfathomable.Comment
-
Some people have claimed hunting contributes to "reverse evolution." Because we seek out the biggest bucks we are leaving the weaker animals in the herd. However modern management practices show this does not have to be the result.
Comment
-
Big O i do support hunting on here I just have no ideas what's bad about it. figured I'd ask trustworthy people.Comment
-
Hope we helped you out. If you need anything in the future all you got to do is ask, you know where to look for us.Comment
-
Dang I wish I had a resource like this when I was in school! You guys gave enough info to write about 5 papers or a good start on a Masters thesis! Excellent, glad to see knowledgable, generous sportsmen out there.Comment
-
other than the massive growth in car wrecks, people getting put INTO enployment because you have to have some one take the dead varmits off the road, mass growth in population numbers which will lead to the creation and spreading of disease, i think you should have enogh.Comment
-
There are several benefits of hunting, so disallowing it has many consequences but the ones you really need to focus on for your essay are: 1) Increased human and wildlife conflicts (Some species are prevalent and pose a threat to human economics and safety, therefore some animals need to be harvested to help obtain a more "acceptable" level of human/wildlife interaction.) 2)Loss of a subsistence food source (Hunting provides food, and programs such as Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry help feed very poor or homeless people everyday. It can also be an effective way of saving money on your next grocery bill.) 3) The demise of wildlife conservation programs (hunters help fund conservation programs through the sale of licenses and hunting gear) 4) Direct economic loss due to loss of funds generated by hunters (billions of $'s each year), crop damage, and ecological system damage (deer in high populations browsing on high value timber species for example)
Stay away from some of the topics suggested by others regarding "animals eating themselves out of house and home," and "increase in wildlife disease." Although hunting can be used to alleviate these types of situations where wildlife populations are in high concentrations, there is no evidence suggesting that not hunting will cause such situations. I have worked at wildlife management preserves where no hunting was allowed, and neither of these conditions existed. The wildlife populations were healthy and well balanced. Nature has a system of checks and balances that is unsurpassed by our own methods of management and we can hardly even comprehend how complex it is. However, when the elements of nature are removed by people, then it is people that need to step in and try to impliment a new system of checks and balances. Hunting is a tool used to accomplish that goal. It is a tool used to help accomidate the needs of people in today's evergrowing society. Wildlife populations can exist just fine without hunting. However, hunting has SEVERAL benefits especially from an economic standpoint. Give your persuasive essay an economic backbone and you will come out with an A+.
Anybody disagree?Comment
-
This is an excellent commentary, but I think we all missed the original question.
The way I read it, twice, is that his paper has to have a "pro and con" side. He is asking what is BAD about allowing hunting, and what possible good will come from banning hunting.
And on that fact, I know of not one think that will benefit by stopping hunting.Comment
-
Well...it might get some of the animal rights groups to shut up for a little while...but that's about it. :-)Comment
Comment