Should hunting be legalized

Answer 1

As with many questions, different people will have differing opinions about hunting. I do not therefore represent that my opinion is the only right and correct one. I would encourage you to also consider opposing opinions before you make up your mind, especially (my opinion) if they are factual rather than emotional. Hunting is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy wildlife population:Left alone, nature kept wildlife populations in balance and healthy through predation, starvation and disease. In many areas, human activities have destroyed nature's ability to maintain this balance. Predator species have been eliminated due to an (often unfounded) fear that these species threaten livestock. The removal of predatory species not only reduces nature's ability to control wildlife numbers, but also, as predators usually kill the sick or weak, results in an increased risk that genetically inferior animals will survive to pass on their damaged genes, resulting in a weaker populations as a whole. Farming and garbage dumps provide a more than ample (if not always healthy) and easy food source for some species. In and of itself, as long as the food source does not disappear this is not a great problem, from the viewpoint of the animal populations, as there is an ample food source. It does mean, however, that genetically weaker individuals, who in natural conditions would not survive, live to pass on their inferior genes. The result again is a weaker species. Where wildlife becomes dependant on food sources provided by humans through agriculture, there is also an economic cost to this. Human safety Increased wildlife numbers also result in more road accidents with loss of life or injury not just to the wildlife but also to humans, not to mention the vehicles. Economic reasons: In addition of losses to farmers and road accidents, hunting also directly and indirectly provides jobs. Indirectly jobs are produced in industries that provide sporting goods. Directly, jobs are created in rural areas where hunters go. They leave money behind in some of these communities in the way of guide services, accommodation food etc. In many areas this represents important revenue allowing residents to live there. There are also emotional arguments in favour of hunting: Many feel hunting provides them with a link to their remaining primal instincts, an opportunity to commune with nature and to spend quality time with friends or family members. This is not to say, as some anti hunters might claim, that they enjoy hunting because it is killing. While there are as many reasons why people hunt as there are hunters, for most experienced, mature and responsible hunters, killing is the least important aspect of the hunt. The joy comes in having the skill to find the animal in the animal's own home, without the animal becoming aware of them. Most hunter's will let most animals they come across go without shooting, even if they are legal to shoot. They will let a younger animal go and wait for a trophy or an animal that is past it's prime and will soon die anyway. They satisfaction of finding the animal is the better part of the hunt. Indeed, some of my most memorable hunts I have not filled my tag, but did learn something new or see something unusual. While some anti hunters call hunting cruel or inhumane, responsible hunters take great pride in being sure they will have a clean, quick kill and will not shoot if they are not sure of the kill. If they fail in making a quick kill, they will go to great lengths to track a wounded animal. This is not to say that there is not some suffering, but as compared to being killed by a predator or starving to death, for the animal there well may be less suffering involved than dying naturally Anyone who does eat store bought meat but rejects hunting as being cruel should try and visit an abattoir or at least talk to someone who works in one. These animals also do not always die quickly and cleanly. The fact that we do not see the suffering, or that we pay someone to do our killing for us, to me, does not seem morally superior. The hunter's, at least, are not pretending they are not what they are, animals who kill other animals for food! At the same time, I have great respect for anyone who believes that killing other animals is wrong and who therefore abstains from eating any meat or using other animal based products (not just leather or furs but also many medications, cosmetics, food additives etc.. While I admire those who live in accordance with their convictions, I do feel, however, that this is a personal decision which is valid for them but that they do not have the right to impose their morality on others any more than you or I would have the right to insist that they must hunt or eat meat.

Answer 2

As Samantha1997 states, the first answer (above) this is her personal opinion.

The problem, for me, with emotional arguments is that they can never be proven or disproven, be right or wrong. They are valid for the individual who holds them (at least at that time) and therefore right for them.

In that it is right for Samantha, although I personally disagree strongly, I did not feel I had the right to edit over her response. Instead I am adding some thoughts and facts below. You can all read both answer's then and make your own choice.

Hunting is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy wildlife population:Left alone, nature kept wildlife populations in balance and healthy through predation, starvation and disease. In many areas, human activities have destroyed nature's ability to maintain this balance.

Predator species have been eliminated due to an (often unfounded) fear that these species threaten livestock.

The removal of predatory species not only reduces nature's ability to control wildlife numbers, but also, as predators usually kill the sick or weak, results in an increased risk that genetically inferior animals will survive to pass on their damaged genes, resulting in a weaker populations as a whole.

Farming and garbage dumps provide a more than ample (if not always healthy) and easy food source for some species.

In and of itself, as long as the food source does not disappear this is not a great problem, from the viewpoint of the animal populations, as there is an ample food source. It does mean, however, that genetically weaker individuals, who in natural conditions would not survive, live to pass on their inferior genes. The result again is a weaker species.

Where wildlife becomes dependent on food sources provided by humans through agriculture, there is also an economic cost to this.

Human safety

Increased wildlife numbers also result in more road accidents with loss of life or injury not just to the wildlife but also to humans, not to mention the vehicles.

Economic reasons:

In addition of losses to farmers and road accidents, hunting also directly and indirectly provides jobs.

Indirectly jobs are produced in industries that provide sporting goods.

Directly, jobs are created in rural areas where hunters go. They leave money behind in some of these communities in the way of guide services, accommodation food etc. In many areas this represents important revenue allowing residents to live there.

There are also emotional arguments in favour of hunting:

Many feel hunting provides them with a link to their remaining primal instincts, an opportunity to commune with nature and to spend quality time with friends or family members.

This is not to say, as some anti hunters might claim, that they enjoy hunting because it is killing.

While there are as many reasons why people hunt as there are hunters, for most experienced, mature and responsible hunters, killing is the least important aspect of the hunt. The joy comes in having the skill to find the animal in the animal's own home, without the animal becoming aware of them.

Most hunter's will let most animals they come across go without shooting, even if they are legal to shoot. They will let a younger animal go and wait for a trophy or an animal that is past it's prime and will soon die anyway.

They satisfaction of finding the animal is the better part of the hunt. Indeed, some of my most memorable hunts I have not filled my tag, but did learn something new or see something unusual.

When I used to hunt in Ontario, the average hunter success rate (issued to filled tags) for deer was less than 1/3. In other words, on average a hunter went hunting three years before he got a deer. Clearly killing is not the greatest part of the attraction!

While some anti hunters call hunting cruel or inhumane, responsible hunters take great pride in being sure they will have a clean, quick kill and will not shoot if they are not sure of the kill.

If they fail in making a quick kill, they will go to great lengths to track a wounded animal.

This is not to say that there is not some suffering, but as compared to being killed by a predator or starving to death, for the animal there well may be less suffering involved than dying naturally

Anyone who does eat store bought meat but rejects hunting as being cruel should try and visit an abattoir or at least talk to someone who works in one. These animals also do not always die quickly and cleanly. The fact that we do not see the suffering, or that we pay someone to do our killing for us, to me, does not seem morally superior. The hunter's, at least, are not pretending they are not what they are, animals who kill other animals for food!

Contrary to Sam's response, i also do not see that the fact that many wild animals are "cute" or whether they have or have not done anything to me has much to do with it.

At the same time, I have great respect for anyone who believes that killing other animals is wrong and who therefore abstains from eating any meat or using other animal based products (not just leather or furs but also many medications, cosmetics, food additives etc.

While I admire those who live in accordance with their convictions, I do feel, however, that this is a personal decision which is valid for them but that they do not have the right to impose their morality on others any more than you or I would have the right to insist that they must hunt or eat meat.

Unfortunately Samantha did not state whether she is a vegetarian or not. Does she deny that some domesticated, farmed animals are also "cute"?

If she is not a vegetarian, what did the chicken or other animal she had for dinner last night do to offend her?

People eat. Most of them eat meat. It has nothing to do with personal offense any animal has given us, it has nothing to do with their outward appearance not meeting Samantha's subjective opinion as to what is and is not cute. It is a matter of obtaining sustenance.