Recreational Hunting

Round 2: ArgumentFor this debate, I will attempt to show that recreational hunting (defined in round 1) is both immoral and negative for the environment. Therefore I will split my opening argument into two, fundamental subdivisions which are: D1: Morality D2: Environmental ImpactD1: MoralityArgument #1: Hunting to ExtinctionDue to the fact that the human race has such a massive population it is easy to understand how if even a small percentage of them (approximately 5%) hunt, then there is the possibility of driving a certain species to extinction. The famous example of over hunting would be the Dodo Bird, which was hunted to extinction just one hundred years after Europeans discovered it in the late 16th century. However, the Dodo Bird is not an exception as there are dozens of other species that suffered a similar fate, such as the Tasmanian tiger and the Great auk [1]. Since the beginning of the 17th century there has been a record of over one hundred animals that have become extinct due to human beings [2]. Graph A shows that 23, or about 1/4, of these extinctions have occurred due to hunting. If one were to do do the math, that would equivilate to about 25 species that have become extinct due to hunting. Graph A: Admittedly, it is true that not all of these species became extinct due to recreational hunting, and not because of just regular hunting for the sake of providing food. However, due to the fact that the vast majority of mammals became extinct in the 1900's, a period in time where humans were no longer required to hunt in order to feed themselves due to an agricultural boom, it is clear that the majority of animals that became extinct due to hunting were the victims of recreational hunting, and not regular hunting. Graph B displays the overrwhleming number of mammals that became extinct during the 1900's. Graph B: This raises the question: is it right that human beings should have the ability to kill and lead an animal to extinction solely for the sake of recreation. In my opinion, absolutely not. Argument #2: Pain of the animal Another point that shows that recreational hunting is immoral is the fact that a large portion of the animals that are the victims of recreational hunters are not killed instantly and therefore suffer immense pain. One study about British deer hunting showed that 11% of deer killed by recreational hunters were shot multiple times and often took over fifteen minutes to die [3]. Another study on 80 white tailed deer revealed that twenty-two of them had been shot with "traditional archery equipment". As if this wasn't inhumane enough, the study showed that of these twenty-two deer, eleven of them had been grievously injured, yet were not recovered by the hunters [4]. Yet another study conducted by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks revealed that over 3 million wounded ducks shot by hunters go unretrieved every year [5]. Both of these studies show that a large amount of recreational hunters hunt solely for the purpose of killing animals, and have no intention of using them in any useful way after that. I believe that this certainly qualifies as immoral, as there is absolutely no justification for killing a creature that is weaker than you are solely for the sake of killing. D2: Environmental Impact Argument #1: Effects on the biosphereOver hunting a particular species does not only effect that species, but every other species that lives in the same ecosystem [6]. To give an example, let us create a hypothetical situation. In said situation there is a Parasitic relationship (meaning that one species is benefiting at the expense of another species) between wolves and deer. However the relationship is quite stable as there are never enough wolves to truly wipe out all the deer and there are enough deer for the wolves to have plenty of food. However, if we introduce hunting into this scenario, the entire relationship will be destroyed. If humans start hunting deer, then the deer population will inevitably drop due to the combined factors of better technology, a higher population of human hunters, and the continued threat of the wolves. Once the deer population drops, the wolves will no longer have there food source and inevitably their population will decline as well. If humans continue to hunt in this region, they will eventually hunt the deer to extinction, and by doing so will cause the wolves to become extinct due to the fact that they had lost their food source. This clearly shows how hunting does not solely effect the prey, and often times the relationship is more complex than the generic deer-wolf example, therefore effecting more species. In truth, hunting can sometimes benefit another species and therefore become prosperous. However, this should be avoided as well because a rapid increase in population of a particular species can prove to be damaging for the other species in the ecosystem. Argument #2: Hunting creates starvationIronically, nowadays hunting actually causes starvation more than it provides food. It does not create starvation within the human community, however it does generally cause starvation to the victims of hunting. There are many reasons for why this happens, such as: a) Hunting causes the victims to move out of the ecosystem that they were previously living in. If this happens, the species is going to have a difficult time feeding itself due to the unfamiliar environment in which they are now living in. b) Hunting can cause a break up the so-called "family" of a species. These families stay together in order to feed and protect themselves. If this group is split up, the individuals are going to have a hard time fending for the selves, due to the fact that they don't have the support of their family. c) If an animal is shot and wounded, yet not received by the hunter, it will obviously have a very difficult time getting food for itself in the wild. Since over 30% of animals shot are not killed, but wounded, it is clear that their is a significant amount of animals that die of starvation because they cannot feed themselves anymore [7]. ConclusionI have shown that recreational hunting is an unnecessary and harmful act due to the fact that it is both immoral and harmful to the environment. I look forward to hearing my opponents argument in the next round. Sources[1] http://www.mnn.com... [2] http://www.nationalgeographic.com...[3] E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, “Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus),” Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3–24.[4] Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., “Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment,” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998)[5] Spencer Vaa, “Reducing Wounding Losses,” South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, accessed 25 July 2013*For Sources 1,2,3, and 4 use {http://www.peta.org...} as a URL to find them. [6] http://regulatehunting.blogspot.com...[7] http://smmcroberts.net...