In the article, David Von Drehle explains how several animals on the brink of extinction have not only been saved, but that these animals are establishing themselves in areas in the suburbs. In one picture it shows a tranquilized bear falling from a tree close to the University of Colorado in Boulder. Do you support the state mandated hunting of wildlife? Why or why not? Give a scholarly response and support for your decision. Submit your post by Friday, December 6th to receive credit.
Below is the link to the article:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2158676,00.html
Hunting wildlife has always been a controversial subject. In my opinion, I do not think it is right to hunt animals. However, if it gets to the point where the animals are harming humans, then I do believe that it’s the right thing to do something in order to control them. I some-what support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. Yes, it is essential to not let these animals overpopulate a community, but sometimes the killing gets out of hand. These creatures already have enough predators, and we do not need to be added to that list. I realize that back in the day it was necessary to hunt down animals for survival. However, in this century that is not the case. There are thousands of grocery stores that have the meat you want. Also, there are so many less harmful hobbies that you could take up, like archery. Hunting is, by its’ nature, a dangerous sport. According to International Hunter Education Association, it is estimated that about 1,000 people are accidentally shot while on a hunting trip. It’s important to control the number of animals in a specific community, but overhunting can lead to dangerously low population levels, which can cause a species to disappear from a region. It can even possibly lead to extinction. If we’re not careful with how much we hunt, we can end of severely harming a certain species. Overall, I do not support hunting as a sport done for the fun of it, but I do understand the need to control the population of animals.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about the creatures already have enough predators. I mean, we as humans are the top predators! We can't let that power get to our heads.
DeleteI understand you when you say that animals are getting overpopulated, but at the same time, I'm wondering what what about us. Aren't we overpopulating? I understand that we need to control the animal population, but I agree with you when you that the killing is getting out of hand.
DeleteIn the summer, I could not ever hear the end of my mother’s rants about the rabbits. They would eat her flowers or destroy the grass in our long pretty much everyday that they desired. It didn’t bother me in the slightest, but when put into a national perspective, this problem is colossal--and unfortunately, it keeps growing. We cannot stop the constant reproduction of animals, unless we take the unwanted plan of killing these animals. This would, of course, decrease the population of animals that are invading our ‘territory’, but what are the weaknesses of this plan? Could we potentially kill more of these wild animals than we mean to and cause an endangered species? Could we change the lifestyle of our own society for the worse by having hunting as an openly accepted pass-time? But then again, what if those against this plan overrule the mandate? Will these animals eventually be a regular to our streets and suburbs? Will people begin to be annoyed and hunt illegally? There are pros and cons to each side of the argument, and the reason why both sides continue to bicker is because this is a mix of such controversial topics. Wildlife Protection and Gun/Hunting rights have been two recent topics among America, and the mix of both of them, along with the issue that is growing as we speak, creates a topic that is sure to make TIME magazine. I, personally, agree with the decision made, but only if it is continued in moderation. Wildlife is good, but when wildlife truly does become wild is when there is a problem that must be solved.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point, the reason that we struggle to currently control these problems is because there are to many people on completely opposite sides. The only way we will ever be able to find a solution is if both sides can find a compromise.
DeleteI too agree that this is a main part, also said that when wildlife is wild there is a problem and they must be killed. We can't have wild animals inhabit our community. If they become a danger, they need to be killed
DeleteIn my opinion, I think hunting is fine, but only for survival. If you hunt just for fun and just for the pleasure of killing animals, then I think you need a new hobby. But there are people in the world who need these animals for food, and if that's the only way they can survive, well that's just nature. Hunting is part of nature, and if there's a hunter, there is always a hunted. But on the other hand, hunting for fun should not be allowed. I don't think killing God's creatures for pleasure or for money is a good thing at all, and I would really like to know what people get out of killing an innocent animal.
ReplyDeleteNate: You bring up a fantastic point, one that I only briefly mentioned. This is why hunting can be good, yet bad, too. It is unbelievable to even think that people would, like you said, kill God's creatures for absolutely no reason. On the other hand, which I mainly talked about, the hunters who kill animals for a food source should definitely have the right to hunt.
DeleteI think that hunting should be a hobby and not something that people need to do to control the population of other animals in the wild. Hunting is much less cruel that some other things that people do to animals, such as the large factory's where they keep chicken in small cages and basically torture them. That is why I don't have any problems when people hunt animals. But I think that we do not need to kill the animals because their population is getting too large. If people want to hunt, they should hunt. But if the only reason you are going to hunt is to get rid of the animal, I don't think that you should be doing it.
ReplyDeleteYour perspective brings on a good point. Of course if hunting is necessary to control populations then it should be act upon, but what about as a hobby? Compared to some of the ways animals leave the world, hunting really seems to be a more gentle way to go compared to being tested on as an experiment or being treated cruelly. Either way animal populations would be controlled whether it be through leisure activities or by force. As long as we can wield these choices wisely, then living with the idea of hunting should be considered stable.
DeleteThough many people view hunting wildlife as inhumane, i personally support the hunting of suburb-invading-species. Many animals, like the deer or the fox or even certain breads of bears, find their way into human living spaces and cause unbelievable damage to property. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, over 1.5 million car accidents are caused by dear yearly, and these accidents can range from a cost of $2,800 to $10,000 just for repairs to the vehicle, not to mention any injuries caused by the accident. This all backs up the fact that when a wild animal comes into our urban environments, it can be devastating to both our properties and our economic standings. This is why I support the State mandated hunting laws, because even though we all love animals, we can't share our habitat with them when there are as many of them running around as there currently is
ReplyDeleteWith the amount of outbreaks of animals appearing in local cities and towns, humans are blaming it on the animals and convincing the world that it's OK to shoot these animals down. The truth is, is that humans are responsible for the these sightings. Why do you think animals end up at your neighborhood park, or in the midst of your city? People swipe away the homes of these innocent animals to build shops, roads and other human conveniences, leaving them no where else to live but with the humans. I understand that when a potentially dangerous animal is close enough to harm a human, the animal needs to be tranquilized. What I find hard to grasp however, is how humans are so conceited and naive, that they try to cover up the damage they are causing, and blame it on such helpless animals. My views towards hunting are neutral. I believe that if the hunter is legally hunting a species that is not in risk of becoming extinct, then the sport is perfectly fine. However, poachers who hunt animals that are on the verge of becoming extinct should be put with a consequence. The debate over hunting laws can really go both ways. Like anything, hunting can only go to a certain extent until it becomes a problem. When this problem arises, humans need to find a smart way to make both the animals and humans happy.
ReplyDeleteDo you support the state mandated hunting of wildlife?
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty like Drew, considering we live in the same neighborhood, my mom always complains about the bunnies eating our roses. I may not live in an area with deer or bears or alligators or any such thing, but I've been to places with wild animals. As a camper, I camp in tents and we have wildlife surrounding us where ever we go. We are unharmed by the wildlife, when they live where they live away from us. But when it comes to a point when the wild life comes nearer to us, and starts thinking its home is our home. Sometimes, to protect ourselves, we have to potentially kill them. I do agree, killing innocent animals when they haven't done anything bad yet is bad, but what the people care about is their safety, and if they are in a situation where they could be harmed, of course they would want the animal to be killed. I agree though, because were only killing them to protect ourselves. But, when people just go killing animals that are unpopular, that is not right. Deer is fine, we have a mass population of them, but people shouldn't be killing to kill. But, overall, I do support it for the safety. The state is just trying to protect it and once wildlife steps in and becomes a potential threat, even if they haven't done anything, I understand why they kill them. Its exactly what the wild life does too. If a person becomes in harms way of a harsh animal, the animal will try to kill it. So even though people may not agree and think killing these animals are wrong, I just say that I would rather be safe with them killed then have the potential to be killed myself.
I believe that state-mandated hunting of wild animals is all right. When encroaching wildlife becomes a problem, steps must be taken to combat it, especially in the case of say, a non-native species taking over an area and competing with native species for food, shelter, etc. Look at the recent case of Burmese pythons in the Everglades: These snakes are slowly but surely taking over an area of Florida that is home to many important species, endangered or otherwise. Early this year, The Great Burmese Python Hunt was kicked off, giving hunters the right to kill as many pythons as they could in just over a month. Lots of snakes were killed, but not enough. Another example is the over-population of deer in the United States. If you haven't noticed, there are deer EVERYWHERE. They are always eating people's gardens, causing car accidents, and just generally taking up space. While a deer might be easier to sympathize with, it being a cute and cuddly creature, while snakes are scaly, "slimy" reptiles, the deer population still remains a problem. Lots of their natural predators are becoming endangered, like wolves, cougars, bears, and the like. It's up to us, the humans, to control the wildly spinning out-of-control growth. Still, limits must be made to control hunting and to make sure that the deer population (and others like it) are not made extinct. Meanwhile, I am fairly certain the Burmese python population in the Everglades can be eradicated. Overall, hunting monitored by the state is beneficial, something that must be continued to protect our livelihoods as we know them, but something that we must be careful not to support up to the extinction of a species.
ReplyDeleteDespite our recent efforts to help prevent various animal species from going extinct, there are times where it is necessary to try and cut down some of the wildlife's population. Based on David Von Drehle's article discussing about how different types of animals are starting to establish habitats in the suburbs, I do not blame the state of Colorado for mandating the hunting of wildlife. As animals continue to live further into our habitat, without our contribution to the food chain, various populations will end up racking numbers so high, it would be close to impossible to lower them back down. As stated, "Whether you're a Walmart employee in Florida wondering what to do with the alligator at your door, a New Yorker with a hawk nesting on your high-rise or an Ohio golfer scattering a flock of Canada geese, you now live, work and play in closer proximity to untamed fauna than any other generation of Americans" (Drehle). So for the sake of both our safety and the order of population, hunting wildlife really does not seem to be that bad of an idea. If we have the ability to try and impede the repetition of an event such as The Great Australian Rabbit Disaster, then it is our duty to try and make that happen--the only question that remains would be if we -as a society- are ready to take on and control this responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict of Man vs. Man has always been straight to the point, jail is a likely outcome. What about the topic of Man vs. Animal, would most see as Man vs Food? If so hunting is an acceptable conflict to represent this ongoing battle. The lines of distinction between animal and food are blurring as the days pass on. When people think of a pig, do they think of a curly tail or bacon? Processed animals are treated horribly in the breeding, living and execution process. Chickens for example are thrown into a machine when they are chicks and stamped and inserted with chemicals that make them so big that they can no longer walk. They are typically kept in a farm, with no light access. Compared to hunting this is much worse in my opinion. I would rather clear out the streets by hunting, on season as to not devastate species, and bring down the processed meat. Hunting is past time that comes from the preexistence of humans, and should be treated carefully, so not to get injured, but is a vital part to keep protein up and people healthy.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I really can't make up my mind on the subject. I am an animal lover and I think deer and bears are just adorable and can not imagine why anyone would want to kill these innocent creatures. But that is because I live in my childhood and love every movie with talking animals (aka Bambi, Madagascar, Dumbo, etc..). I know in real life animals do not sing I Like To Move It, Move It with disco lights, they can be vicious and dangerous, in the article it said just normal people will find an alligator on their doorstep. If this is beginning to become a problem I do support the decision to allow hunting, even though people do it because it is fun it is a way to reduce the surplus of wildlife in the United States.
ReplyDeleteLately, I've heard many complains about the hunting of wildlife. It has seem to become a huge controversy all around the U.S. To me, I do not support the hunting of wild life what so ever. Innocent animals are being killed for no apparent reason! I under stand that some wild life has become a treat to something's and therefor I under stand that there's no other option. For example on the side bar it states that coyotes are killing small dogs in ones own backyard. What I don't under stand is why people think if they see a deer on the side of the road, they need to shoot it. Therefore, I do not support the legalization of hunting wild life in the cities. On another note, if a hunter is looking for a good time and place to hunt, go in the forest not your neighbor hood. I think it is a huge idea because that means anyone could be walking around with a gun and not be charged for using it. This is a huge danger to every child in that town and actually EVERYONE within the city limits. There is enough meat at the local grocery store to get your meats. No need to go causing disturbances. Overall, I completely disagree with legalizing the hunting of wildlife within city limits.
ReplyDeleteThis topic reminds me of the blog we did a couple months ago about endangered animals, and what we could do to save them. Poaching was a huge concern when it came to these animals being killed for enjoyment. But i don't think that the mandated hunting of wildlife is like this. There is a difference between hunting for enjoyment and "hunting" to protect yours and other peoples lives. Killing for enjoyment is also killing many of one kind of species, but if you're protecting yourself then it's only killing one that is putting you in danger. I also remember hearing about overpopulation. When we rescue endangered species they may become over populated over time because we aren't allowed to kill them. So if nothing ever kills them; because we're protecting them so much, then we're altering the food chain that in the long run would create overpopulation. To control this problem and make it even; by even I mean not being endangered or overpopulated, we should limit hunting by only allowing a species to a certain season; which we already do, and by protecting them so they don't become endangered but don't protect them too much to where they are becoming over populated. Overall i believe that people should be allowed to kill animals only if they're endangering the lives of themselves or others and not for illegal enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with hunting wildlife to an extent. I think that humans were meant to hunt, and eat meat. Some wildlife such as endangered species should NOT be hunted under any circumstances. We don't want to risk that species going extinct. Other than that reason, hunting In my opinion is acceptable if you aren't planning on hunting and doing nothing with the body. The animal bodies should be eaten. If these animals are going to die, it should at lease be for a plausible reason. If animals are harming humans, i don't think its right to kill it. That animal should simply be relocated away from human life.
ReplyDeleteI think There is a definite problem with the amount of overrun animals in our rural areas today. There are very large amount of deer, rabbits, bears, etc. this is and/or will become a problem if something is not done about this. i think that allowing mandated hunting of wildlife is a good idea because hunting brings jobs and solves a problem of too many animals in our areas. This idea is also good because it is bow hunting only too. Bow hunting makes a lot less noise than firing guns to not bother people. They would would be less dangerous also. this solution would get rid of many animals that would be an annoyance or costly. This is not a problem but could become one. If there are too many animal deaths then this could be a problem because animals could become endangered. Overall i believe that hunting animals in rural areas is a good idea, just not to much because this could lead to extinction.
ReplyDeleteFor years I’ve been ransacked with facts about pollution and how human race is slowly destroying our planet and personally I’m sick of it. I’m one who believes that the Native American way was the kindest way to live since they were all so considerate, but yeah the technology that has become of our generations is very impressive. SO- hearing about how mother nature is throwing punches back made me a little happy. It shows that we don’t and should NEVER have full control over this land and hopefully we can go as far as giving back some land to the animals. However I do agree that there should be a limit to how far we let these animals take over the land as yes they are wild and with it dangerous, so I also agree with just killing if they venture into our private properties such as the suburbs or golf courses. Overall I think it’s a good idea as long as we do our part in maintaining the amounts of each species.
ReplyDeleteI have experienced this first hand over last summer. At my grandmothers in southern Illinois a pack of coyotes were just standing in her driveway at about noon. Though this is a problem, I don't agree with the killing of the animals. I don't agree with the killing of these animals because killing these thriving animals was what almost cause extinction in the first place. But at the same time I do agree that the animals coming closer to towns and people is bad, but i think that we could find other alternatives instead out the hunting of the animals. An example of what we can do is putting up fences around the towns so that the animals cannot get into the town an cause problems.
ReplyDeletei wouldnt say i support wildlife hunting but i do understand the neccesity of it because for a thriving ecosystem u must have a top species with out it the deer and coyete population would grow to rapidly. also with no hunting big game the small animals would suffer because the more cyotes the less rabbits. so i think hunting is important to the ecosystem but people who hunt should only be allowed to kill X number of big game every year.
ReplyDeleteWith less and less people hunting there are many more wild animals in suburbs. This can become a bad thing. Earlier this year we had talked about how cities are becoming over populated because our death rate is lower than our birth rate. We forget that during the stone age and in the bronze and iron ages we hunted a lot more than we do now thus decreasing the animal population, but not so much to make them go extinct. We used to be considered a predator, but now that not many people hunt anymore the death rate of wild animals has gone down. Some of those animals who are becoming over populated are eating the same resources that we need to survive. Also dangerous animals like bears for example are coming into suburbs, this is a major threat to children who stumble upon these creatures. Now I'm not saying that everyone should pick up a gun and go hunting, but I think that we need an increase in the number of hunters to make sure that some species are not over populated. We need a few more Elmer Fudds who hunt "wabbits" because if not the more rabbits there are eating farmer's crops, the less food we will have as a country.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense, yet I don’t fully agree with it. That’s why this topic is so controversial. If animal population is blooming to the extent that they are harming and/or dangerous to humans, then yes, they should be controlled. But I don’t like the idea of humans hunting as a sport, even if it is to benefit population control. To prevent animals from harming humans, humans harm the animals. That’s not right. Yet, I suppose there is no other way to keep a population down. Perhaps it isn’t that there are too many animals, it’s that there are too many humans and we are taking up too much space, not leaving enough for the animals. They would then be forced to find new places to live, and that could include our backyards and front porches. But as of right now, there isn’t much we can do, unless our own population decreases. Therefore, I’ll understand if the state mandates hunting to control the population of animals, but hopefully in the future we can do more than temporary fixes.
ReplyDeleteI do think we need to hunt them but only to a certain extent. The thing is now that certain animals have gone extinct we need to hunt them like the extinct animals use too. I do not think we should hunt them too much though because otherwise they will go extinct. The whole point is you need to replace the animals that are extinct and use to hunt the "pest". So unfortunately we do have to hunt the animals.
ReplyDeleteHunting occurs all around the world with different reasons and different concerns. In parts of Africa there are concerns of poaching and extinction of certain species. In the United States there is the concern of over populated animal species with them living to close to us. I support the allowance of bow hunting in city limits. It would help to control the population. It would also control the spread of disease and animal related accidents when the animals are not walking around our neighborhood. With the allowance of hunting there should be measurers set in place to prevent more animals being killed than we had meant to. The should be population checks every few years and permits.
ReplyDeleteI support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. If animals are getting to close to humans it could potentially hurt humans and the animals themselves, but if too many animals are hunted and the numbers go back down and the animals become endangered again people should stop hunting them and go back to trying to protect them, but until it gets to that point people should be able to hunt. I do support people hunting, especially to help control the animals from disturbing humans.
ReplyDeleteI support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. If animals are getting to close to humans it could potentially hurt humans and the animals themselves, but if too many animals are hunted and the numbers go back down and the animals become endangered again people should stop hunting them and go back to trying to protect them, but until it gets to that point people should be able to hunt. I do support people hunting, especially to help control the animals from disturbing humans.
ReplyDeleteContrary to popular belief, I do not think hunting a species effects if an animal population becomes endangered or extinct. I support the idea of hunters hunting a species because it's at their leisure and for defense against the animals. Although not completely necessary in today's society, animals have always been hunted and always will be. It is a way of evolution, as hundreds of species die and are discovered every day, even if you take out the human threat on such animals. There will be species dying anyway, but humans are taking blame evolution should be taking on the species' fatalities. I do support the law because it is benefiting humans in a way so they can protect themselves from dangerous animals. However, I question if random hunters will go looking for deer in a neighbor's back yard(for example), causing an issue. All in all, I support the new hunting law that enables hunting within city limits to protect and control some local species around us. I believe it is more beneficial than inadequate to society in aiding safety restrictions.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that people are killing animals because they think they are an overpopulated species is heartbreaking. I know it might not be healthy to have so many overpopulated species living together but that is almost the same as saying "lets start killing humans we are too overpopulated it's not healthy". Are humans next on the killing list because we are way overpopulated. There could be another use for the animals besides killing them. Each animal has its own food chain, I believe we should let nature do its job.
ReplyDeleteMany people go hunting as a hobby and think it's fun, but have you ever thought about what the affect could be? I personally think that hunting is not right to the animals and shouldn't be allowed. Some of these animals play a big part in our ecosystem but most people don't think of it that way. I do understand that if there wasn't ever hunting then the animals would over populate and with every situation, that would be the only way that I support hunting. In some cases I could see where hunting could be the best way when there is no other option and I think that there needs to be more restrictions on when to hunt. Even in the story about the bear by The University of Colorado, although it could've harmed the humans, they could have moved it to another place where it wouldn't be able to harm people rather than killing it. There are many other ways to solve these problem rather than to kill them, there just needs to be more people that care enough to do them.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a strong opinion on the hunting issue. I can see both sides of the "debate". On one hand, it is terrible to kill a living thing. It is not fair that we have this power over animals when we humans are the ones creating the overpopulation problems by encroaching on their habitats and/or killing off their natural predators. On the other hand, I can see why people think it is necessary to control overpopulation by killing animals. They eat and destroy peoples' gardens and crops, kill farmers' livestock, and they can be very dangerous and end up attacking or harming us. Animals such as deer can cause car accidents and they can also ruin property and spread diseases. What alternatives do we have? We could relocate the overpopulated animals or introduce natural predators both of which cost a lot of money. I still haven't quite made a decision. Would I go hunting If I had the chance? Probably not. But I can understand why people do.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are a great number of people on each side of the equation for hunting permission, I would definitely be supportive of the recent laws that allow hunters to hunt certain animals. As the article stated, Americans do have problems with certain animals in their everyday lives, all the way from hawks to deer to alligators. Additionally, the article stated that if a population of a certain animal type is too large, it can be just as bad for the population as a major shortage. Yet still, we have national parks. Given that animal populations are getting too large, providing hunting laws actually helps the populations by lowing their count to an average level. I personally do NOT believe that just by hunting, an entire population can become extinct for two reasons: 1) most areas within national do not allow hunting, and 2) even though people hunt, not VERY many people do. For example, in a book I have called "Yellowstone Treasures", the author describes how on the southern boundary of the park there is a straight line of trees cut down to signify the parks boundaries for hunters. Lastly, although I support these laws for the betterment of American lives as well as animal populations, I do not the support the act of one shooting an animal just for the fun of it. Conversely, I am supportive of the people who hunt for a living, for a food source, or for something worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteComing from the daughter of a hunter my opinion would be to kill off half of the animals and let the other half live. With there rate of reproduction the population will easily grow back in no time. However once the population of animals down sizes would there be more of other unwanted pests around. For example if we kill off half of the spiders in the world how many more mosquitos and insects would there be? How many people would have malaria or other infectious diseases? But if you choose to not kill off some animals they could over populate and take over. The diseases they have would spread, some small animals could invade your house. There is not enough room on Earth for millions of animals and millions of humans, its one or the other. But you dont see people shooting other people in Colorado.Also the people that want to hunt these animals should have a kill limit like they do now. You can shoot 2 does and 1 buck. But they have to be tagged to make sure that they are legal. Also they all should have legal equipment and licenses so that the Purge does not happen all of a sudden. In my opinion I would go for shooting some of the animals just to be sure that we do not over populate with animals and be aware that if we do not shoot them we would have to face the consequences.
ReplyDeleteSavannah,
DeleteI find it interesting that you brought up the over-population of humans. Do some societies try to control human population?
Hunting is not a subject that I am particularly involved in, but i do have a stance in what I think is right. Although killing animals is not something I am fond of, I feel that hunting in order to bring the too high population down is necessary. Especially, if having a bigger population can cause harm to the species in different ways. Keeping the populations at a stable number is an acceptable reason to hunt. In regards to the new hunting law about being able to do so in towns, I feel a little uncomfortable about it. I can not imagine going on a walk with my dog and then seeing my neighbor shooting a bow at some pigeons that were on his lawn. However, if it is going to end up helping the wildlife of the town, I'll let it happen.
ReplyDeleteI think what they are going is not bad they are just trying to protect us. They are going things to try not to hurt the wild life at the same tome. We need our distance between wild life and us. The bear in Boulder Colorado is just a little too close for me. What they did was for the safety of the students and also the bear its self.
ReplyDeleteMany of the animals population nowadays are being controlled whether they're in their own habitat, or in the suburbs. I have strong reason to believe this is healthy for our states people. Animals have started to multiply and multiply and multiply, and have exceeded the normal size of their species. For example, deer. Deer have grown rapidly in the past decade, and have been inhabiting areas where they don't belong, like the suburbs. This causes people's yards to be destroyed, and provide a home for deer to stay. This is why I think mandating hunting is good for the state. By hunting animals, we can control the areas they're not supposed to inhabit like cities,suburbs etc. That's why I think it is a essential for the state to keep this law active.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion on the hunting of wildlife has always been that it should only be done if it was necessary for continued survival. I used to live in an area where hunting for sport was a big part of the culture. I found it terrible that an animal had to die for someone else to have fun. When I learned about animal overpopulation of certain species, I was faced with a moral conflict. I felt terrible that people were killing these animals, but their large numbers were harming the balance of the ecosystem. As destructive as the Human race has been to this planet, we are also a key part of the 'circle of life' as well. Does that make us responsible for taking care of overpopulations? Particularly because of the fact that they are now infringing on our own habitats, and can even sometimes be a threat to people even. After much deliberation, I had come to the conclusion that, while sad, it seems to be necessary. Though all hunting should definitely be done in moderation and controls in place to manage what species are allowed to be hunted. This is necessary because, if not watched, an overpopulated species can easily end up on the endangered list.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't really have a straight opinion on hunting. I agree that it is necessary to hunt to decrease large populations of animals like deer, turkey, and other fowl because sometimes these animal's homes are in too much contact for their own good and it becomes a safety hazard for humans. But I am also a huge animal lover so I don't really support hunting either. I saw a show on Animal Planet about somewhere out west, where there was a large population of black bears. So these black bears were getting into people's garbage, garages, and homes and becoming an issue. People in the area were killed or gravely injured by getting too close to the bears. Their homes had become the bear's. To control the bear population the state allowed a few days of hunting. And that seems to solve the problem after they had tried relocating some of the bears.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't really have a straight opinion on hunting. I agree that it is necessary to hunt to decrease large populations of animals like deer, turkey, and other fowl because sometimes these animal's homes are in too much contact for their own good and it becomes a safety hazard for humans. But I am also a huge animal lover so I don't really support hunting either. I saw a show on Animal Planet about somewhere out west, where there was a large population of black bears. So these black bears were getting into people's garbage, garages, and homes and becoming an issue. People in the area were killed or gravely injured by getting too close to the bears. Their homes had become the bear's. To control the bear population the state allowed a few days of hunting. And that seems to solve the problem after they had tried relocating some of the bears.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the hunting of animals is a very sensitive topic. In my eyes, killing animals is wrong in the moral sense. Who are we to decide which animals get to live and which don't? Many of these animals are helpless, some are not even able to defend themselves. The Earth is not only home to us, the humans, but also these animals. Have we ever considered, that we the humans are filling up the animals's world, that they are losing their homes and many times families because of us. The human population is expanding rather quickly, but that does not mean it is legal to hunt humans. Why then is is legal to hunt these animals, especially if they don't do us any harm. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Earth is going through its sixth mass extinction of both plants and animals. The earlier extinctions were caused by a force of nature, but this sixth one is all our fault. I understand that the quantity of many animals are rapidly increasing, but I strongly believe that we are forgetting one key fact. Looking back upon history, one can see the many instances that a natural force has eliminated different species, and reduced animal population, as well as human. Humans shouldn't try to rush nature, and take life and death of these animals in our own hands. At some point, may to be near or far, there will some factor that decreases the massive amount of animals on the Earth. Nothing will last forever, because all things must come to an end. Everything ends when it has to, not when we decide it must end. People may argue that many species are evolving, and that certain diseases or circumstances may not take them out, but people need to remember that life is a circle, beginning with birth, and ending with death. It's inevitable, no one and nothing can be immortal. As I stated before, I don't agree with the hunting of animals. We need to let every animal live out its life, and let nature run its course. After all, "We're all stories in the end" (The 11th Doctor).
ReplyDeleteHunting has always been an activity that I had wishy-washy feelings about. The process of killing animals for "fun" always seemed a little depressing to me and I felt a little guilty even though I've never harmed an animal. However, I feel that hunting is a part of our nation in a lot of ways, since from early on, that was how our ancestors survived and flourished (and of course, The Duck Dynasty Clan). And now with this topic brought to my attention, I have to say that I support madated hunting. When species such as deer thrive then the population itself and many others could be harmed. The deer could run out of food or resources and as for the other animals, the over-population of deer would put certain food webs in danger, putting their species in danger too.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I've never been one to hunt, I feel that this decision needed to be made, not for the benefit of recreation, but for many other animal species.
I will usually not remain undecided on a topic but after reading i'm not sure what to think.We need to protect our ecosystems, but where do we draw the line between our human communities and those of earths animals? Nature is coming to us, because we are coming to them. As our population booms the need for housing and the demand for products increases. To provide, we demolish the fragile ecosystems around us and unintentionally invite these non-human guests into our lives. If we are taking away the habitats of animals where do they go? Many species have adapted to live amongst us. Others that we often fear find refuge in our backyards. I cannot to go as far to say that hunting is a liable solution to the issue. It would be more insult to the problem that we are already responsible for. Over time our to worlds will have to learn to co-exist or face serious issues on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteHunting wildlife is a subject that has been debated for a very long time. Is it right to hunt these animals if they are infringing on our "territory", or is it wrong no matter the circumstance? Personally, I do not agree with the hunting of wildlife in general, but I do acknowledge, as everyone should, that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It is not safe, both for animals and humans, when the lifestyle of humans collides with the animals' natural habitat. In my opinion, we humans should make a concerted effort to stay out of areas where there is a significant wildlife population, but certain animals- like deer and raccoons- are just getting out of control. There is no way we need this many raccoons on our planet, and the deer could certainly handle a reduction in numbers. Basically, my view is that hunting is acceptable only with certain species. There should be strict conditions to what animals are mandated to hunt. For example, if the population is over a certain number of individuals in that area, with little to no natural predators of the animal, you would hunt in that specific area. If measures are taken to not let this get out of hand, it could help slightly. Obviously, there is a limit to what this hunting would be able to accomplish, and with so many animals of certain species it would take a lot of effort and manpower to do. However, despite all of the negative aspects, something needs to be done, and hunting- if done with caution and care- could be a solution.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, hunting wild animals such as the whitetail deer, the black bear, moose, and many other wilderness animals is considered a sport. Animal hunting has been in my family for many generations, and it occasionally provides my family and I as a reliable food source. But, there is a boundary between which animals are necessary to hunt on and which are not. I am strongly against the hunting of tigers, elephants, lions, giraffes, zebras, gorillas/monkeys, and any other exotic creature. Hunting an animal just for their fur or body parts, is just plain wrong. I remember reading about hunters that were killing gorillas illegally, chopping off their whole hands, and selling the hands on the black market as ashtrays. Another slaying I will not stand for, is de-finning sharks. It makes me sick to my stomach. have you ever heard about shark fin soup? DO NOT EAT IT PLEASE! In japan, fisherman are catching sharks, slicing off all their fins, and throwing the sharks back into the ocean, and they are still alive, but hopeless because they are unable to swim. I have seen pictures of lifeless shark bodies in piles at the bottom of the ocean, and that kind of torture needs to stop. Anyways, I have a firm boundary of where I draw the line, in killing animals. I also have the same problem with bunnies, they just will not stop eating our plants! So, for the most part, I think it is OK to kill animals that are necessary. The whitetail deer species is everywhere in Illinois, and they reproduce quite fast. One day, I'd like to participate in hunting with my family.
ReplyDeleteThe hunting of animals can be a good thing or a bad thing for humans. I think animals should be left alone in their habitat. If they aren't harming us then I see no reason to kill them. But if they are harming us then humans need to take action for safety reasons. I remember a while ago hearing about a cougar roaming the Chicago area. This is to close for comfort. Also the cougar was lost and scared of us and the cars. This wold be a case where killing the cougar would be the best idea. The do support the state mandated hunting law. When animals overpopulate they expand where they are living. This is pushing them to close to humans causing conflict. I will occasionally watch the show Gator Boys on Animal Planet, they take alligators out of peoples property. Soon the amount of alligators in Florida will increase and the alligators will become to much for the Gator Boys and citizens of Florida to handle. This is just one case. Many states see this problem with other species. So I think shooting an animal if it gets to close would be acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Shannon. I think that if the animals aren't being a bother to humans and aren't causing a problem, then they should be left alone. However, like the incident in Chicago, if the cougar was terrified and in potential danger, as well as putting humans in danger, then killing the animal would b the right choice.
DeleteAlthough there are reasons for it to be considered cruel, I do support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. I have to admit I do not know much about hunting. However, I know that hunting in moderation is helpful and necessary to prevent the overpopulation of certain wildlife. Deer, for perfect example, have increased their population drastically. At this point, it can be very dangerous to the human population. When I was little, it used to be unusual and exciting to see a deer on the side of the road or running through a pasture. Now, it's sort of annoying and a lot more common. Yes, part of the reason why deer would catch my attention was because everything is more exciting when you're younger, but also because I didn't see them as often. Lately, every once in a while on our way to school, my sister will have to come to an abrupt stop in the middle of the road to avoid hitting a deer and causing harm to both the animal and ourselves. My point is, it gets to a certain extent where the population of wildlife is too high. Since the level of danger is only getting worse, hunting is not a terrible solution to this problem.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of hunting our wildlife is a very opinionated topic. Usually, i would never go for any animals to be killed, however, the article created an arguable decision. With the populations rising and some species going overboard, it is effecting our environment too.The rise in one population can cause others to shrink. For example say the deer population is a at an all time high. Where it might seem like a good thing that a species is thriving yet with the more animals, they need more to eat. If the food of the deer is still at its normal size, it will be devoured and could be extinct by the larger number of consumers eating it. Therefor, if killing the animals will help control the size of populations and avoid others from being extinct, then hunting is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteThere are always two sides to every argument. In this case it's either do you support hunting of wildlife or not. Personally I'm not much of a hunter and I don't support the right to kill wildlife, but in this case the animals are endangering not only humans safety but their own. With the wildlife coming into suburban areas it's causing disturbances. Yes, hunting the animals could bring the population down but instead of killing the majority of the wildlife there are others ways. For example, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, "...trapping and euthanizing coyotes has been shown to not only remove the individual problem animal, but also modify the behavior of the local coyote population. When humans remove a few coyotes, the local population may regain its fear of humans". With this way the chance of having a species go endangered goes down. Although we can never completely get rid of these problems our first step shouldn't have to be to kill off the species.
ReplyDeletePeople have different views on hunting and animal reproduction. If we have to many of a certain type on animal over inhabiting an area however sad we have to find a way to limit the number. Especially if the are causing trouble. I do understand the other side though and think it is very sad that there are so many of a certain kind of animal we have to do something about it
ReplyDeleteI do not support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. I think its so cruel and sick to think of people killing off this animals. Animals that do not really harm us humans all that much, besides the over population part, but natural death always takes its course and could simply die off on their own from age, disease or from a predator. Feel like there are other ways of coping with the animals instead of hunting. I mean, our human population is at a high, but I don't see people killing one another 'cause of it. I do not believe this hunting thing will work out the "pest problem", but we'll just have to wait and see.
ReplyDeleteLast year, my mom and I were driving to school one morning, when all of a sudden a deer comes hopping onto the street. My mom immediately stopped and waited for the deer to cross the street. After a few seconds he did and we proceeded driving. About a second after I turned my head away from the deer, I noticed red eyes coming directly towards me. Yes, the deer ran into the car. As soon as the deer hit the car door he bounced back and went into the woods.Horrified my mom and I once again found ourselves stopped in the middle of the road. Later that day when I told my class this story. Including me, we all laughed. After that day, I have noticed several more deer on that street.
ReplyDeleteThis article really got me thinking about how much human society has dominated this Earth. Instead of caring for the safety of all living things, we only care about human safety. But does safety mean hunting animals so that they don't interfere with another animals growth and development. To answer your question, no I don't think it's right that the state mandated hunting wildlife. I get that some wildlife like a crocodile in Florida or a hawk in New York would pose as dangers to humans. But if we hunt them down we're threats to them and to all the other animals that live there.
Yet again overpopulation of some wildlife animals is causing problems within not just human society but other groups of animals too. Take the deer for example, if it's overpopulated then the other animals such as rabbits and raccoons won't have enough food to survive. If this is the situation, then I do think it is ok to hunt animals that pose a threat to more then one type of spices not just humans. I feel many times humans forget that we aren't the only spices and with excessive hunting it will lower population of another spices and potentially cause extinction. Extinction can also happen like Times magazine said happened to the deer last century.We have to be careful on how many animals we extinct due to hunting, because if we abuse hunting and hunt just to hunt, then this will decrease our food source immensely. Whatever the state chooses to do,wether they let the wildlife be wilded and die normally or on someones wall due to hunting, death will always be there no matter what.
Kailey,
DeleteYou and your mom were very lucky. Years ago, I hit a deer with my car and did a ton of damage to my car. It was terrifying. It is hard to decide what animals are 'ok' to hunt and which aren't.
In my opinion I support the state mandated hunting of wildlife. When these animals such as deer are hunted it keeps them from becoming over populated. If there was a law to stop us from hunting deer the number of deer would go up. I've heard of people hitting deer because they run in front of their cars, if there was more deer then the change of hitting a deer increases. I'm not so sure I would want to run into a deer. An increase in population would create an over population of deer. What are deer's major predators? I'm not so sure they have a lot, if anything they have like one. Deer don’t have much to worry about in becoming extinct at the moment. Smaller animals would have a slight of a disadvantage to hunting because they already have predators since they are not as large as deer. In some cases it completely depends on which animal it is, but you can’t really pick and choose. Would the hunting licenses be revoked in this case? Would there be more poaching? With this it may bring up more issues because if there is no hunting deer and people poach them, then why wouldn't they poach other animals. I mean why not if you are already breaking the law then why not? Changing the law and making hunting illegal would have major changes in the food chain. There would be a surplus of animals that weren't there before and change a lot. Over all i agree in the state mandated hunting of wildlife and thing that hunting should be legal to maintain a proper number of all animals, to prevent over population.
ReplyDeleteI do support the state mandated hunting. I believe that my reasoning is quite simple. Since we have been capable to eat other organisms, we have hunted for our food. Technically, hunting should be considered normal. Animals, do go extinct, and it is a shame, but many species are leaving this earth daily and others take their place. Now in days we have our meat brought to us in stores, so we no longer have to hunt. I personally love wild-life, but we need to keep the number of animals normal so they don't become a pest, or just get used to them being around. Wildlife is wonderful and beautiful, but times are changing and we are slowly becoming closer to wild animals and it interrupt some comfort zones. If people wish to fix this then we make a man-made island for the creatures and transport them there when we have an issue; ignore them, or simply contain the species population.
ReplyDeleteMany people enjoy recreational hunting. There a strict limits imposed by the government to help keep this past time from getting out of hand. But is it actually acceptable to just kill wildlife? I think it depends on the person's mindset. A few targets are okay, but if a person's goal is just to cause havoc to the earth then they need to be controlled. That is the purpose of the hunting laws, and I think they serve their purpose well. It is tough to get beyond them because there are so many people who avidly care for animals and keep a close eye on hunters. The decisions to keep hunting legal were caring and well-informed. Hunting is a practice that has been going on for thousands of years, and it is okay as long as it does not get out of hand. Wildlife surrounds us and it is part of the natural cycle that animals die to leave room for new growth. Even with all of our modern technology, humans still play an important part in this circle of life. Sometimes we forget what a key role we have in the world of animals, and we must continue playing our part, but also not overstep the boundary between recreation and cruelty.
ReplyDeleteMy family isnt too into hunting. My dad and mom both hate it, but my uncle loves to hunt. Im a total animal lover, I was a vegetarian for 4 years before my doctor made me start eating tofu. So I never had, and never will go hunting. But I know that hunting is an important part of the balance of the ecosystem. Without it, deers would overpopulate areas, as would rabbits. Which could mess up the entire carefully balanced system. But as Drew said, could we kill too much? Easily. But at the moment I don't believe we are. Like the article said, society is also bringing hunting back with shows like Duck Dynasty. Will that change the balance of the system? I wanted to do some more research about this, so I found a website with some interesting opinions.
ReplyDelete"According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels and raccoons—“provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.”."
But what if thats wrong? Didn't we learn at the beginning of the year that keystone species can affect the environment with any change, and that could hurt animals who feed or rely on them for resources. So I can see that there is clearly room for debate here, but I do not support the state mandated hunting of wildlife, because I think it is morally wrong. But on the other side, I do believe it is necessary to maintain a balance.
There is a fine line between hunting and killing. Hunting has a chance of coming back with nothing, while killing one can go in and come out with seventeen deer on his car every time, but why is this? Our new society has given us technological advances to make getting a deer a simple household chore. We have been given new guns over the years that like in school offer an advantage to hunters they cant resist taking. In school students want to be the top of everything, and with a growing knowledge around us that furthers how much we need to learn its hard. so we look for the advantage of Adderall, and students take this immensely, because it's there edge. But in the wild we don't need an edge to be successful, were already fighting something with no weapons. I'm pretty sure little old bambi is not going to hurt you. This being said I support hunting ,but using guns to make it seem like a cheap deer hunting arcade game you find in run down family restaurants, makes it more childish than it should be.
ReplyDeleteWildlife is incredibly important, I will admit. However, the preservation of a few animals becomes much less important when it begins to interact with our human society. When animals become too abundant, they ruin farmers’ crops and wander into our neighborhoods. Some animals even attack children and family pets. With the new technologies that the 20th and 21st century has brought us, wildlife can no longer mix with human life very easily. Wild animals are not meant to live in an industrialized world. But, on the other hand, without wildlife, the earth would not be able to support us. Our ecosystem needs these sometimes annoying animals in order to complete the food web we’re woven into. We cannot completely eradicate nature. Therefore, I support a compromise between the two sides. I approve the mandated hunting of wildlife, as long as it is kept in moderation. As soon as the ratio of wildlife to humans is as it should be, then we stop hunting. This compromise could solve the problem we face today, ridding us of the annoying (and sometimes dangerous) closeness to nature.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, we are humans. That sounds an awful lot like the word, ‘humane’, as in kind and caring. We are the top animal in the world. That's a huge responsibility! We make the decisions that affect the planet, whether it’s with plowing down a rain forest with a mall, slicing off alligator skin for handbags, or putting so much pollution into the atmosphere that it causes difficulty of breathing and cancer. With that, we cannot destroy the other animals. This is their place too, and it was long before humans showed up. Just because we’re the best, does not mean we need to destroy everyone else. I mean, if the animal is about to harm you, then maybe it would be alright, in self defense. The law says if it was a human, it is okay to protect yourself in self defense. However, the law does not allow us to kill other people. What's the difference in killing people, or killing animals? I do not agree with the decision that these people are being allowed to hunt. It's basically setting a bunch of murderers lose! Unless it is in self defense, there is no other respectable reason for death. We cannot become savages that simply do what they please. There needs to be some logical thinking behind these decisions, which currently, I cannot see. What I can see is that we need to look out for the other animals around us, before we completely kill them off for no decent reason.
ReplyDeleteAshley I totally agree with you on the fact that law says we can't kill other people, so why kill animals? I think you made a good point that even though animals can't give us their opinion, it doesn't mean they are any less deserving of life then we are.
DeleteThe hobby that some express as hunting just disgusts me. I understand that there are many people all over the world that need to hunt to just survive. Hunting for survival is something that many need to do and that is alright. But once you start to hunt animals for the fun of killing it, is where I feel something is wrong. Harmless animals like deer and ducks, just trying to live an ordinary life, until you come up with a weapon that they can do nothing about and drop dead for your entertainment. I understand that they are coming into our subdivisions and our neighborhoods, but the only reason that they are is that, where you live now was at one time a place where the deer and other animals called home. We inhabited this area removing the wildlife and the forests and now they do not have much of a place to go. We took away their home in the first place and then we are killing them for fun. What makes that fun? Just like taking your neighbors home and shooting him for the fun of it. I do not think it is fun or something we should be doing. The wildlife can handle its self. Each animal has a predator in some way. They will all die at sometime, and the ecosystem can work just fine if we do not kill the animals. The state mandate of hunting is not something that I think is logical, the killing of animals for "population control" but really it is for the fun of us humans, is just like killing humans. It just breaks my heart to see a dead deer head as a trophy on someones wall and I don't think it is fair!
ReplyDeleteI Don't think hunting is inhumane because we have hunted since humans were first created. It is a way of our life. However, I do not support hunting on endangered species or any animals that are not the usual game(deer;birds). The selling of endangered parts is wrong and should not be supported. But, deer hunting In my opinion is okay because some people can't afford meals all the time, and this is a way for them to eat.
ReplyDeleteI can see why hunting is such a controversial topic. Although I personally do not support hunting animals for a sport and for entertainment, I can see why it is sometimes needed to keep the numbers of animals in control. Hunting does harm animals, however it's affects are much lass tragic and gradual versus having to mass murder them when it does get too out of control such as it did for the Australian Rabbit population. The world is a crowded place, and if hunting would help keep things in order then I think it is ok as long as the animals are facing quick, sudden death and not slow painful cruel fates. Also, as long as they aren't hunting endangered species, creating new endangered species, or wasting the animals life and not using the meat etc.
ReplyDeleteHunting is definitely one of the most talked about hobbies, but it also one of the most controversial. Hunting has developed (in areas like Illinois) into a sport, or a form of entertainment. There is hardly any need to hunt some of these animals, except for the right to say that you got a 'big buck' or whatever. I can see if you are 'keeping the population in check' with some animals, but i still don't think its always right. There still are a lot of endangered species that are being illegally hunted, so we just have to do all we can to help the species that can't survive the hunting, like whales. But i do support hunting in some aspects, like the hunting of deer of turkey, because they both have a large population. Just as long as we don't add any more animals to the endangered list, (because of hunting) then I'm okay with hunting.
ReplyDeleteIn most regards, I support the state mandating the hunting of wildlife. While I don't consider wildlife to be pests in the sense that they cause major damage and discomfort, there's no denying the fact that wildlife is dangerous. With development of increasingly expansive housing and commerce districts, we have limited the area that wildlife can inhabit. This is what leads wildlife to appear at our doorstep. I'm not going to say that killing innocent creatures is the right thing to do (especially when we're the cause of such incidents) in every situation, but in the moments where killing them is unavoidable, it would be best to use the remains. Invasive and overpopulated species could be controlled by the enforcement of hunting too. By controlling the population of certain species, it would be easier to rehabilitate species on the edge of extinction.
ReplyDeleteHunting is and always will be a very controversial topic. You always have the animal and nature loving side and then the die hard hunters. I am kind of in between on the debate. Although I don't think killing animals is necessarily the right thing to, but it helps keep populations of certain animals balanced. It is also a huge source of food. People have been hunting since the beginning of time. I dont think you can stop it know. I also think you should only be able to hunt certain animals to prevent other endangered ones from going extinct. If we did not hunt the common dear chances are there would be a huge population of dear which could lead to bigger problems. Would you rather have people killing dears or have to pay $500 to prepare your car from hitting another dear.
ReplyDeleteHunting has always been around. Every animal on this planet that eats some form of meat has to hunt. Humans are animals too, and this makes me think about how just because we are maybe the dominant species of this planet doesn't mean we have the right to flaunt it around. I do see the purpose of hunting. Humans need food, and humans like food. Meat has been a major component of our eating habits since we stopped being gatherers. I find it strange that nowadays, people get angry and upset when humans hunt, but thousands of years ago we think it fine. Many other animals hunt as well, and they do it for survival, but you don't see other animals wagging their fingers to try and get them to stop. The act of raising domesticated animals is another thing that could be worse than hunting. Hunting, where we take what we need and go, is much different than domesticated animals, which are taken from their natural habitats and eventually bred, and slaughtered. Just the idea that we are fine with this, and not okay with hunting is a terrible thing. I agree that hunting should definitely be allowed, as long as it is done in regulation, given that we don't want a disaster like the extinction of passenger pigeons. But at the same time, we don't want an Australian Rabbit Disaster either. Many people would probably agree with me, and all in all, the problem isn't with hunting, the problem is with the people that speak against it, but refuse to do anything about it, and that's what disgusts me the most.
ReplyDeleteI think that hunting should be allowed because it is recreational. As long as hunters abide by the state laws in which they hunt.
ReplyDeleteI always looked at hunting as something fun to do. All my life I’ve wanted to hunt. To me it just seemed like an enjoyable activity. I’ve always wanted to come back to my house with a deer to prepare for dinner. Now I look at hunting as something totally different. I never thought about population growth and how many animals are taking over my neighborhood. There are so many deer and geese and I’m tired of finding feces on the streets. I support the state mandated hunting of wildlife because I’ve noticed an excessive amount of wildlife in my neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteSafety for our loved ones has always been a priority among humans, and with the threat of the wildlife it is only natural to want to put it to an end, however I believe that this should be done in a harmless and safe way. By limiting hunting seasons it allows the animals to grow and thrive while still not overpopulating to the point that there are major problems in the areas with high human populations. When there are no limitations and people are constantly killing the animals is where we face the problem of extinction. By causing certain animals to go extinct there could be extremely ecological problems with the circle of life and the food chain. However when there is the opposite of this problem and there are too few animals being hunted then that causes overpopulation where animals began to take over the small towns and hard earned crops and gardens while some may also enjoy something tasty from the garbage. Just like anything else, there requires a balance, and by mandating the hunting policies it allows that balance to stay even.
ReplyDeleteHunting is a recreational activity that when done properly, cautiously, and wisely, can be healthy for an environment. So long as the animals aren't being tortured or cruelly killed, and the only animals being hunted aren't endangered, I believe hunting can be okay. We don't want anything like the whaling problem the world has had happening again, because the goal should not be for an animal to go extinct. Hunting is a good form of population control and a good recreational sport but it should not be aimed toward cruelty or extinction.
ReplyDeleteHunting has been with us since before even Christopher Columbus discovered america. The natives did it both for food and to cut down the population. In my opinion, I think that people should only be able to hunt animals with a surplus population or are a harm because they get too close. Animals with a lower population should be protected.
ReplyDelete