User:Rodervaz/sandbox

Recreational Hunting Abolishment

Since ancient times humankind has had the need to hunt all kind of animals to obtain food, dress and tools. But nowadays, the scenario has changed, and also the necessity of society to kill wild animals for that purpose. Although some people think that recreational hunting is an activity that provides a lot of benefits, there is a lot of evidence that proves that recreational hunting is affecting negatively the fragile balance of nature and causing a lot of additional problems.

Opponents of recreational hunting abolition claim that recreational hunting is a safe activity. Since the injury rate for hunters is lower in comparison to other physical recreational activities, such as football and bicycling. In contrast, those who are in favor of recreational hunting abolition point out that hunting injuries are more likely to cause death if we compare it to other forms of recreation. For example, approximately 100 people die in hunting accidents only in the U.S. every year, and unlike other forms of recreation, hunting not only endangers direct participants’ lives but it also affects the entire community. (“Hunting,” par. 9)

Hunting proponents state that hunting is inexpensive to society since hunters kill the animals for free, and also hunting permits support wildlife management agencies. Nonetheless, those agencies are supported by the majority of  taxpayers that do not hunt. For instance, only 4 percent of Americans are involved in hunting activities. (Lin par. 3)

Hunters say that hunting is a tradition, a ritual or a bonding experience. Regarding ethics, hunters think that killing a wild animal cannot be worse than killing a cow or a chicken. Moreover, unlike the cow or the chicken, wild animals have a chance to escape. On the other hand, hunting opponents find hunting unethical because the killing of animals is recreational without any serious purpose. Besides, statistics show that thousand of wild animals are killed every year only for the sake of killing them. (“Compilation,” par. 4)

Hunters defend the idea that hunting is a practical way to manage the overpopulation of some wild animals since main predators have been eradicated in many areas. Therefore, reducing the wild animal population will reduce human-wild animals conflicts such as car-animals collisions, and landscaping damage. On the contrary, opponents propose that hunting is ineffective for solving those conflicts. Studies show that car-animal collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the wild animals out of the forest pushing them into roads. In addition, hunting is unnecessary because the wild animals will self-regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce, so if the deer population needs to be further reduced, immuno-contraception can be used. (Lin par. 5)

All in all, it should be evident that the arguments in favor of keeping hunting as a recreational activity are not valid. On the contrary, everyone can see that recreational hunting is damaging the natural wildlife; as a result, the whole environment is modified with unpredictable consequences. As you and I can notice nature is wise, it does not need to be regulated by occasional hunters, who only kill for pleasure. Additionally, recreational hunting is a harmful activity not only for hunters but also for people who are close to them. Finally, recreational hunting costs a lot of money to society who had not been asked to support this barbarian activity.

Lin, Doris. “Animal Rights” about.com. 2010. .

“Compilation from The Fund for Animals with data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies” www.idausa.org 2008. .