5 sources cited length: 959 words 2.7 double spaced pages when a minnesota dentist killed a prized african lion named cecil he received an onslaught of criticism and reignited the debate concerning hunting. the reasons i hunt are for the meat, i think it tastes better than store bought meat and it doesn't have any additives in it, and for the time i get to spend out in the mountains. According to outdoor life, the whitetail deer population grew from 29.8 million in 1994 to 32.7 million today. If we were to get rid of hunting, the deer and elk populations would grow at an even higher rate, and we would have a lot of problems. Opponents of hunting, such as phyllis mcrae, would say that hunting is cruel and unnecessary, and it hurts the animals rather than helping them cpha? . Well sure, it doesn't sound right that killing deer and elk helps them, but it actually does. As pockets of green space shrink and disappear in our suburbs, the species has become the center of the debate over hunting, and many who consider themselves neither hunters nor animal activists find themselves drawn into the debate.

The debate centers on practical and ethical issues including deer management, human/deer conflicts, non lethal solutions and safety. Hunting proponents argue that hunting is safe, effective, necessary, and inexpensive to taxpayers. The injury rate for hunting is lower than that of some other forms of physical recreation, such as football and bicycling. Proponents argue that hunting is an effective form of deer management because it will remove a number of individual deer from a population and prevent those individuals from reproducing.

Since natural deer predators have been eliminated in many areas, hunters argue that hunting is necessary to perform the function of wolves or cougars in keeping the deer population in check. Hunting proponents also argue that reducing the deer population will reduce human/deer conflicts, such as car/deer collisions, lyme disease and landscaping damage. Compared to sharpshooters and immunocontraception, hunting is inexpensive to taxpayers because hunters will kill the deer for free. Also, hunting permits are sold by state wildlife management agencies, which are partially or fully supported by the sales of permits. Hunters argue that killing the deer is better than letting them starve to death. Regarding ethics, hunting proponents argue that killing a deer for food cannot be worse than killing a cow or a chicken.

Crime And Punishment Dostoevsky Essay Topics

Furthermore, unlike the cow or the chicken, the deer lived a free and wild life before being killed and had a chance to escape. Hunters also argue that killing a number of deer benefits the ecosystem as a whole. Some hunters also oppose certain practices they consider unethical, such as baiting, canned hunting, trophy hunting, and hunting of stocked animals.

Essay About Slave Life

Hunting opponents argue that hunting is unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary and unfair to taxpayers. Opponents point out that compared to other forms of recreation, hunting injuries are far more likely to be fatalities. Approximately 100 people die in hunting accidents in the united states every year, and unlike other forms of recreation, hunting endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants. Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads. Contrary to popular belief, hunting does not address lyme disease because the ticks are usually spread to humans by mice, not deer. And as long as suburban landscaping includes deer preferred plants such as tulips and rhododendrons, that landscaping will attract hungry deer, no matter how many deer there are.

Opponents also argue that hunting does not reduce the deer population because removing some individuals from the population results in more food per deer, which leads to the births of more twins and triplets. This also means that hunting is unnecessary because the deer will self regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce. If the deer population needs to be further reduced, immunocontraception can be used. Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high.

Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of americans do not hunt. From a pure animal rights standpoint, killing any animal for food is morally objectionable, whether that animal is a deer, a cow or a chicken. Also, many argue that human/deer conflicts are not the fault of the deer, but are the fault of humans who take habitat from the deer. Some hunting opponents also believe that modern technology has erased any chance of fairness in hunting. Certain practices are also considered especially objectionable, such as canned hunting. The two sides will continue to debate safety, effectiveness and cost, but will probably never agree on the ethics of killing wild animals for food, trophies or recreation. is an animal rights attorney and director of legal affairs for the animal protection league of nj. post your essay.

Block Style Argumentative Essay

Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of english literature? click like to share. Definition argument: defining ethical with a free essay review danielle mcqueary ms. Brandi davis english 102 m 12 march 2012 in early america, hunting was the only means of putting meat on the table. Today, however, most people rely on the nice man in the white apron to supply them with the meats that they so desire. With the convenience of getting their foods already cleaned, dressed, and prepackaged, it seems that some americans have forgotten where their ancestors started out in this world. They would say that strapping on insulated boots, putting on camo, and hunting for our own food, means we are partaking in an unethical practice.

Hunting is an ethical practice because it helps control the population of invasive species, prevents over population of native animals, and deepens the public appreciation for wildlife and their habitats. They were first brought here by early spanish explorer hernando desoto in the 1500's jacobs. The southwest florida water management district states that, they prey on native wildlife, compete with native species for food, and transmit diseases to other wildlife, livestock and humans feral hogs. Boars also destroy crops meant for human food, and pose a real threat to personal safety because of their aggressive nature.