Hunting Benefits The Environment

Improved Essays
The second highly controversial function hunting works to serve is to benefit the environment by balancing and enriching it. This function is not only controversial to animal rights activists because it employs methods they find deplorable (Francione, 18), but also because they contest that hunting damages the environment rather than enriching it. (Dizard, 64-65). I believe that despite it 's bad reputation, hunting in the United States serves a greater service than disservice by maintaining a much needed balance in our environment. It is true that in the past human hunting has been the primary cause for many species ' extinction and may be in part the cause of our modern skewed ecosystem, but the benefits to the environment hunting now …show more content…
It 's economic and environmental benefits greatly outweigh it 's negative aspects- the rare instances of friendly fire or animal suffering- and we should not judge hunting as a destructive, unnecessary sport because of it 's unfortunate past consequences. Hunting is no longer endangering the lives of thousands of species as it was fifty or hundreds of years ago, modern hunting does not take away more than it should away from the environment and instead now provides a much needed balance in order to continue conservation efforts and expand the natural diversity of our country. Hunting is necessary because as we can see from the example of deer, nature gives us too much for a modernizing and expanding world to handle, and the minor drawbacks currently associated with hunting are no where near as equal to the large benefits it provides America 's people, animals, and …show more content…
Is hunting a reality some find unpleasant? Yes. But it is a reality they will just have to morally disagree with or come to accept. Hunting is not the way we destroy nature but rather how we interact with it and it 's balance, and like every balance it can be easily shifted. Perhaps further into the future when our abilities as a species increase even further will we no longer have the need for hunting, but as it stands today, we need it to improve our planet and grow as a

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    If trophy hunting only occurred on invasive or overpopulated animals, there would be no need to worry about the overall affects on the population as much. Anthropocentrists would still make money, biocentrists can justify this type of trophy hunting because it goes towards protecting the environment from invasive species, and ecocentrists would accept it because it keeps overpopulated and invasive species from further degrading the environment. The issues with this method are similar to the issues with the previous method. The highest paying animals hunted are those with a threatened or endangered status. Taking these animals off the market would produce less income for conservation and therefore less money to be used to help restore the endangered and threatened species.…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But when you look at the data we see gtaht our perception of trophy hunting as a monstrous activity could actually be harmful towards animal populations. When we accept that it is not the main cause of animal death and can actually bring economic growth to regions that desperately need it we can start to do something about it. We should be angry that African nations are not restricting exports of horn and tusk gained though poaching. The people pay to kill animals will be used to help save more animals. That is a hard fact to accept, another is the fact that a full ban on trophy hunting would actually be devastating for animals and for locals.…

    • 1004 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If we produced it here in the US, it would cut excess costs of transportation and it would help finically support struggling families. While many activists are worried about the life of the animals living in the refuge, for example polar bears show not to be affected by human disturbances. Along with new technology advancements, the risk of drilling causing spills wouldn’t be as much of a…

    • 1473 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A paradox refers to a statement, proposition, or situation that seems to be absurd or contradictory, but in fact is or may be true. One of the more famous paradoxes when it comes to wildlife conservation is the Trophy Hunter’s Paradox. Hunting wildlife, especially endangered animals, seems antithetical to conservation. And yet, conservation hunting seems to be the next “big thing” in conservation. Why is conservation hunting so important to the climate of conservation today?…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    We are spending a liberal amount of money preserving species that are not equipped to survive themselves. According to Ford, we don 't depend on endangered species, so why is it a big deal if they go extinct? In many ways this sounds correct, it seems insane that the death of an endangered species could affect humans directly. Therefore, the reason we are protecting these species is because humans only care about how cute the…

    • 1647 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In order to be a Speciest, one must believe and practice Speciesism, which is favoring one’s own species over a different animal species. Some acts of Speciesism have a greater impact than others, yet Singer believes that almost everybody is guilty of being a Speciest. There is a significant amount of evidence to prove Singer’s point. First, the main argument that humans are Speciests is that we continue using animals for food, even though it is not a necessity for survival. In fact, it is proven that meat is not a vital step for keeping good health (Singer para.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is why people see more animals roaming around in town, they are searching for food and water because they no longer have what they need. Hunters help keep this from happening. By harvesting wild animals, such as deer, they help keep that population controlled and keep them off the streets also keeping them from suffering from a lack of food and water. Hunters are not the ones choosing to build on the wild animals natural land, so why take it out on them? Hunters want there to be more land; more land means more animals, and more food sources for the animals to be strong and healthy.…

    • 845 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    What I have concluded is that we should hunt because of conservation, fresh food, and family traditions. These all play a vital role in why we should hunt. Many of the opposing sides argument was that hunting is inhumane, not safe, and why we should not eat meat. I feel like these organizations have their own opinions and claims, but never want to pull out facts when talking about the subject. When looking at the benefits of hunting, they outweigh the negatives often used in propaganda against hunters and hunting.…

    • 1843 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He agrees that we really need to increase the experiment amount to avoid putting human lives in danger because the increase in life expectancy , decrease in pain or deaths, the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments. Although Cohen does acknowledge the existence of speciesism, however he does not agree that it is similar to racism or sexism as Singer puts it. He argues that Singer’s arguments are invalid because there is no moral difference between races or sexes. Nonetheless, he believes that there is a moral difference between humans and animals that doesn’t grant rights to animals but it does allow humans to use animals for their…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He proposes the idea that the best way to preserve our environment is to be active and manage how much we invade what is left of the natural world. He uses examples of how policies put in place around the world have worked to prevent some populations of animals from going extinct. Rolston also makes a good point that the human population is rapidly growing too much and requiring humans to take land away from the natural world just for the sake of expansion not recognizing the diversity of the land. (Rolston 459-460). However, the points that Attfield criticizes makes it so Rolston’s argument for policies is not perfect and leaves things vague like his definition for development and what should be done about the humans’ overpopulation.…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays