Recreational Hunting

Morality: Men kill animals, and eat their flesh. This particularly pointed concept is at the heart of many debates regarding hunting since the modernization of farming. There really is no such thing as "un-recreational" hunting, at least in civilized societies. Animals are slaughtered, herds killed in droves with each tick of the clock across the world to satisfy our hunger, so the morality of killing for food is a moot point: we do it all the time without batting an eye. The only real question behind it is motive. This question is better summed up by asking it in reverse from the (inevitable) death of an animal. Did we kill it for the sheer joy of killing it? Was it the challenge of marksmanship and the field craft of stealth? Was it the personal desire to take an animal on your own, rather than relying on a grocer, or butcher to sell you the same creature? Did something better come from the act? The morality of an animal"s death is based solely on the desire of huntsman, which is NOT to be confused with their skills of marksmanship, their knowledge of tracking, or the random happenstance that might cause an unclean kill. No reasonable person wants an animal dead JUST for the delight of its death. Unlike the Johnny Cash tune about man, no one shoots a deer "Just to watch"em die". Man has a desire for independence. We enjoy being able to do things on our own, be it fix our own vehicle, build our own living spaces, and yes, even provide our own food. This desire doesn"t stem from malevolence toward nature. We as a specie want to keep and hone the ability to harvest our own necessities, but Con would have you believe that to be immoral. Environmental Impact: Now, before it gets brought up, Pro will state that indeed many hunted animals are not killed for their meat. They are not killed because they poses some quality that the hunter will harvest and use for a better benefit, and indeed, they killed by sportsman. Who would want a creature killed in such a manner? Ironically, nature herself. Con was polite enough to mention this premise, so Pro will in turn be kind enough to explain it. With the unnatural introduction of specie (which as Con volunteered, generates 16% more animal extinctions than hunting), who better than to thwart that problem than hunters! The benefits to nature are of course immediately found, the foreign specie is systematically exterminated so that the balance on the local ecosystem isn"t violated or is at the very least mitigated [1]. This, combined with hunter initiated conservation efforts to correct the irresponsible (but far from immoral) over hunts of the past can be used to restore the natural balance. This doesn"t include the other benefits to such a hunt, like the permits paid for, the local merchants that can cater to such a hunt, and the various industries that are now supporting what should be dubbed an eco-friendly act. Speaking in dollars and cents, hunting generates 1.6 billion dollars per year toward conservation efforts, and through taxes and permits fund the US fish and Wildlife Service, and Forestry Service, [2] but, again, Con would have you believe all that to be immoral. So, obviously, trophies are bad. Killing an animal for the purpose of stuffing it, and hanging it on the wall just to say "Look what I did! " is despicable, right? What if it"s done for the betterment of the specie as a whole? Or even MORE specie than the one hunted? Many big game hunts, the variety of which that garner negative attention by their controversial nature, neglect to have the benefit or even the cause of such a hunt publicized. The shock value of the slaughter of one African Rhino via sold hunting permit drives viewers, but does the other factors of such a location and practice a disservice. Wildlife refuges in impoverished nations have sold hunting permits on specific nuisance rhinos (nuisance to either local human populations or even a detriment to the herd itself), generating 6 figures per trophy that may go toward anti-poaching efforts and extension of the refuge. Furthermore, additional monies (upwards of 11 million collectively for this practice! ) go to further aid the local community via eco-tourism. The benefits of a managed hunt easily outweigh the generated hysteria of such a harvest. [3] Such an overall positive benefit cannot and should not be considered immoral, and as shown, recreational hunting brngs such a benefit. Money is generated for conservation efforts, practical solutions for alien specie can be adopted, and nuisance animals are dealt with. Speaking on the morality of hunting when compared to the whole of society consuming animals on an industrial scale makes the prospect of calling such hunting 'immoral' almost hypocritical. Resolved: Recreational hunting and its environmental impact is an upright and moral one. Sources: [1] . http://news.discovery.com... [2]. http://www.rmef.org... [3]. http://conservationmagazine.org... For more interesting facts and figures about the benefits of huntering, give [2] a good look over, the various industries and side benefits of permitted recreational hunting are more completely listed!