Hunting should be forbidden

This debate is over whether or not modern hunting (hunting with rules and regulations) in the U.S. shold be forbidden. First of all I would like to set out a few definitions: Hunting- the act of a person, animal, or thing that hunts. (http://dictionary.reference.com......) Poaching- the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission. (http://dictionary.reference.com......) Bag Limit- A bag limit is a law imposed on hunters and fishermen restricting the number of animals within a specific species or group of species they may kill and keep. (http://www.ask.com......) Game- wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit. In case this wasn't understood, I'm arguing that hunting should continue as it is presently, with the rules and regulations that are being used presently (and rules and regulations added depending on the situation). Con is arguing hunting should be expelled all together (in the U.S.). The list of some "recent" animal extinction in North America include: *Oregon Bison *Banks Island Wolf *Eastern Elk *Cuban Red Macaw (On Cuba I know but very close to the North American continent) Like I said these hardly cover all of them but I tried to get a diversity and choose some of the major ones. Lets start with the extinction of the Oregon Bison. The extinction was caused by overhunting and skinning. However, this happened before hunting rules and regulations had been put in to stop this type of hunting (http://www.uwsp.edu......). The Banks Island wolf the same (http://www.itsnature.org......). Eastern Elk? Same (http://web.utk.edu......). Cuban Red Macaw? Same (http://www.petermaas.nl......). So what's the moral for the above facts? Is it that hunting is a horrible, cruel thing that should never be allowed. No! The only reason those animals became extinct was because of no government regulation on the bag limits and sometimes even government encouragement. Since around the 1950s when laws and regulations for hunting were put in place not a single animal has become extinct in North America from [modern] hunting (try and find one on google if you don't believe me). > As already stated modern hunting does not cause extinctions. This means we'll still have animals for generation after generation. >First and foremost, the #1 cause of animal extinction is loss of habitat. #2 is introducing new species and #3 is overhunting. This is for the whole world though so overhunting still is caused by "prehistoric" hunting. As in hunting without limits or regulations(http://books.google.com......). So what do we gain from this information? It's that if you want to stop hunting totally, you also have to stop building houses. Now not building any more houses is illogical. Although, once again I would like make the point that "modern" hunting does not cause extinctions. Common misbeliefs about hunting: 1) Hunting is a slaughterfest where the animal has no chance and the hunter kills at will. 2) Killing an animal is murder. 3) Hunters kill simply for the fun of killing. Hunting is not a slaughter. This is a huge misconception for most people. Hunting is generally extremely challenging and difficult to get good at doing. Animals are not stupid, they are very skittish and wary. First a hunter needs to find a good spot. If he doesn't, day over and nothing is taken. If he does he then needs to have a good setup (i.e. decoys, eliminate smell, camoflauge, etc). If he has steps one and two he then needs to get whatever he's hunting into shooting range (calls, rattles, decoys, etc). Finally at the moment of truth if the hunter does all of the above steps correctly he will mostly get some game in range. When the animal gets in range he then takes his shot(s) (depending on what your hunting there are laws prohibiting certain amount of shells, or bullets your gun can shoot) at it. From my own hunting experience and from the experience of others it varies on what your shooting to the percentage of times you actually hit something. A bad shooter maybe gets a hit 25% of the time while a good shooter hits maybe 75% of the time. I hope you can see how difficult it is for a hunter to get some game and try and fill his bag limit. The wariness of animals makes it very hard to get close to them and the challenge of it is what hunters hunt for in general (details later). Killing an animal is murder. This one is opinion based so I can't put out facts that make it wrong. You can't also put out facts to make it right. I can however, put forward facts that could change someone's point of view. Many animals are used as sacrifices. For every Christian out there if you've read the Bible you'll know that God use to want animal sacrifices for certain sins. So for Christians saying killing animals is murder makes God look like a murderer. What about all the non-christians of the world? What about animals that kill other animals? If you think it's cruel that animals are killed then you go take it up with the predators of the world. Animals will die, and animals kill each other much more than humans kill animals (common sense). Although I can't speak for everyone I can say that in general (myself included) hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt (to clarify, they don't hunt FOR the kill, they hunt for the ANTICIPATION of the hunt and kill as well as the meat and skin). I have met perhaps around 250 hunters at least in my life and not one of them was some crazy, psycho lunatic on the loose who took out his angers on "helpless" little animals. Hunters hunt for the challenge and when they do get the game they eat the meat, use the skin, and other uses depending on the animal. Now every group has its minority and there are hunters out there that break rules. What they do is against [modern] hunting so such an argument is irrelevant to this debate. It's not like we go out to shoot animals then just leave them there dead. I personally believe that killing an animal for nothing more than fun is wrong. Some may disagree with me but that's just my point of view. In general (as once again I can't speak for all hunters) we do use the animals that we shoot. I will make further points as necessary and look forward to refuting my opponent's argument. I wish my opponent good luck on his rebuttal. I would just like to point out one last time though that to win he has to prove that "modern" hunting is wrong and that we should get rid of hunting totally. P.S. This is potentially a vote-bombing target so I would just like to ask that the debaters don't vote and that voters base their votes off of who did better, not who they agree with more. Also I would like to ask that voters explain their votes in the comment's section.