Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doing a persuasive essay for school about the problems represented by not allowing hunting. I want to there to be serious answer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BioGuy
    replied
    Is this essay still a work in progress? We're waiting!

    Leave a comment:


  • muskiemaster
    replied
    will post the essay when it's complete.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sharkfin
    replied
    One thing that you might want to include are the current and previous years population estimates and harvest data. I always use this when talking to people that want to ban hunting. I live and hunt in SC. Every year the deer population is around 900,000 and every year about 300,000 to 350,000 are harvested. Does this mean that the population would double to 1.8 million in about 3 years? Probably not quite but it would definitely increase dramatically. I've got a friend whose parents live at the beach and after a bad storm several years ago many, many deer were pushed into their development due to flooding. The very next year they were seeing starving and dead deer that were diseased due to the massive over population in the small area. They allowed people in the neighborhood to start using bows and crossbows to help relieve the problem. There was also a large increase in human/deer confrontations and vehicle/deer collisions. It was 3 years before the deer that were harvested began being safe to eat and the health started to increase. They still see more deer than they ever did before but they are keeping the population in check. Dying from disease and starvation is a much less humane way to go than being taken by a hunter. There were also issues with pets in the area getting sick.

    Leave a comment:


  • hjohn429
    replied
    Nothing that is moral and humane will benifite from banning hunting. If hunting were totally banned, then animals would totally over-populate, causing them to starve to death.

    Leave a comment:


  • hjohn429
    replied
    Well there are new animals every year, right? Is there new land every year? Hell no! So it is our God-given responsibilty to keep the animals from starving to death and/or being hit by cars or eaten alive by dogs. Think about this. Would you rather be eaten alive and die of bloodloss and grueling pain or be shot in the heart and die in a matter of seconds? Most normal people would chooses the less painfull second choice. And plus the purest of all protien in the world comes from healthy, cleanly harvested game animals. You should read the book "God, Guns, and Rock&Roll" by Ted Nugent. It basically is the best book ever written in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • BioGuy
    replied
    Well...it might get some of the animal rights groups to shut up for a little while...but that's about it. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Bowers
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BioGuy
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • hunterkid94
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CPT BRAD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Big O
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • muskiemaster
    replied
    Big O i do support hunting on here I just have no ideas what's bad about it. figured I'd ask trustworthy people.

    Leave a comment:


  • BuckTheSystem
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • steve182
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X