Hunting has been a controversial topic for many years, with some people arguing that it is cruel and unethical, while others believe it is a necessary part of wildlife management. As an expert in the field of SEO, I will provide an unbiased perspective on the issue of hunting and its effects on animals and the environment. To begin, it is important to understand that ethical hunters and wildlife managers are highly skilled shooters. They make clean kills, which means that death is instantaneous and the animal does not suffer.
This is more humane than allowing animals to die of hunger or other natural causes. Additionally, fees charged to hunters help homeowners pay for habitat conservation costs. However, there are some drawbacks to hunting that must be considered. For example, hunting can disrupt migration and hibernation patterns and destroy families.
Animals such as wolves mate for life and live in close-knit family units, so hunting can have a devastating effect on entire communities. The stress experienced by hunted animals caused by fear and the loud noises and other shocks created by hunters can also seriously compromise their normal eating habits, making it difficult for them to store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter. Critics of hunting often argue that it is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable extending their legal rights to beasts must recognize that many animals are sensitive, meaning they have the capacity to suffer.
If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain and death on a sensitive being, then it is wrong to hunt. This position is known as “the harm objection”. On the other hand, there are some forms of hunting that can be considered defensible. For example, hunting “designed to ensure the total welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both” is known as “therapeutic hunting” and can be justified in certain circumstances.
Subsistence and sport hunting, which only benefit humans, are not defensible in this way. Killing an animal is bad, but not so bad when you consider the animal that is in your big mac. These animals lived in cages and probably never saw the sun, whereas free-range hunted meat lived in a forest happily. According to the U.
S Fish & Wildlife Service's National Survey of Wildlife-Associated Fish, Hunting and Recreation (200), only five percent of Americans (about 12.5 million people) consider themselves hunters today, up from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996. Hunters can also pay to kill native and exotic species on “canned” hunts at for-profit game reserves or hunting ranches. When I hunt an animal or raise it myself, I know that it lived well or free and that when my arrow puts a price on its heart, it will die instantly and without pain or fear; the same cannot be said for cattle raised in factories. Even many people who don't eat meat abstain because of the unnecessary suffering caused by industrial agriculture or because of CO2 emissions, many of whom have no problem with hunting since it is a much more humane way of killing an animal than industrial breeding. When discussing hunting, it is important to identify what type of hunting you are discussing. Legitimate arguments abound for and against hunting for population control of deer and other “annoying” animals; or for the livelihood of people who kill animals in order to eat them. Hunters who chase deer because they find the experience stimulating or because they want the antlers to be mounted on the wall are sports hunters. Pain and suffering can also occur when hunters injure animals but do not kill them.
Owners can increase their chances of success by providing guides who are familiar with the location and habits of the animals; allowing the use of dogs; and providing “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters stalk. Hunters also kill animals that have large populations, which can cause those animals to die due to lack of food. However, with proper management, hunting can be a good thing according to Sharon Levy, author of Hunting Plays a Crucial Role in Maintaining Natural Habitats and the Environment. But is it worth killing nature's beautiful creation to feed humans? Hunting has put an end to numerous species and manipulating wildlife in such a cruel way is something I consider completely atrocious. Agreements that allow Native American tribes to hunt whales are justified in part by the subsistence value that animals have to these people. In conclusion, while there are arguments both for and against hunting, it is important to consider all aspects before making a judgement about its morality or ethics. Ethical hunters make clean kills so that death is instantaneous and painless; fees charged help pay for habitat conservation costs; however hunting can disrupt migration patterns and destroy families if not properly managed.