Predator Control And Rancher 's Attitudes

Why do people kill innocent animals for sport? Many see it as cold-blooded murder. Hunting’s popularity still persists though. In The Most Dangerous Game, the author, Richard Connell shows his negative view on hunting. Three reasons can prove this theory.

Predators, hunters, and habitat contribute to the increasing densities of whitetail deer in some locations. The populations of predators, wolves and cougars, have greatly declined in suburban areas. This declination has helped with the increase of the deer population. Since the 1970’s the number of hunters has been declining. This may be because of the number of people that do not believe in recreational, or sport hunting. For some hunting has become a hobby to show off and brag about causing others to be turned off to the whole idea of hunting. Although hunting can be popular it is prohibited in parks,

* The fundamentals of animal economics are how big is a home range at various seasons, what food and cover must it include, when and how is it defended against trespassing and whether ownership in an individual, family, or group affair. (December, pg. 86)

Hunting has become a staple of American traditions since the beginning of the first hunter/gatherers, to the Native Americans who have lived in the U.S for millennia, even all the way until present day. Much of today’s society looks at hunting as a cruel activity when in reality it has more of a positive effect on the environment than it does harm. There are an abundance of benefits that come from hunting. Some of the benefits of hunting are: it is the biggest contribution to conserving wildlife, the meat is healthier than commercially produced meat, many jobs are being supported out of hunting, and every hunter wants “to bag” the trophy animal; however, there are a few cons to this, which include poaching and interference by the activist

Hunting is a common controversial issue among people. Determining when killing an animal is necessary and ethical has mixed viewpoints. One type of hunting that generally creates feelings of animosity among people is trophy hunting. There are very few ethical theories and ideas that support trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is a form of hunting in which the hunter kills an animal with the main goal of taking a part or parts of that animal for a trophy. The majority of trophy hunting occurs in Africa, with big game as the most popular trophies, but trophy hunting also applies to non-exotic species as well. In this paper, I will start with introducing a recent incident involving the killing of a popular African lion, then outlining the main ethical issues with trophy hunting. Next I will analyze the trophy hunting from an anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric viewpoint, and finally I will propose a few solutions that would make trophy hunting a more ethical activity. Trophy hunting has been said to provide many benefits to conservation and preservation of species but is ethically lacking; with some stronger laws and regulations trophy hunting has the potential to be both ethically acceptable and beneficial to the environment.

This so-called balanced view was presented in a program in which the “most misrepresented issues concerned the economic impact of wolves. Ranchers were allowed to claim unsubstantiated losses, with no attempt to validate the accuracy of these claims” (Laverty, par. 2). In granting the balanced view sought by the legislature, the “program portrayed the salt of the earth rancher as a poor victim of the federal government’s whim to restore the ‘killers’” (Laverty, par. 2).

One great naturalist and well-known deer researcher, Aldo Leopold, once said, “There is value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints collectively called sportsmanship.” That quote sums up why the concept of Quality Deer Management is becoming more and more popular in the hunting community today. All over the continent deer hunters are welcoming a philosophy of deer management unlike the traditional methods that they were used to in the past. However, while some parts of North America are welcoming the idea with open arms, others seem to be dragging their feet.

As this debate is an emotional one for many individuals, discourse surrounding it can become fraught will fallacious appeals to emotion, which undermine the basic principles of argument themselves. One topic of this debate that comes up frequently is that of the attitude and motivations of hunters themselves. While anti hunters make them out to be bloodthirsty killers, that do it purely for the enjoyment of the act, others maintain that it stimulates an appreciation for nature and respect for the world around us. These biases that both groups fall victim to stir emotion in readers, and are present throughout the debate. While mild usage of pathos is acceptable, such demonising is not.

While this article addresses various topics and discusses potential solutions, the foundation of these statements lie in the interest of elk and a passion for hunting, thereby exemplifying this organization's immense bias. Furthermore, these article makes no note of the organization authority or credibility, nor do they attempt to provide any validity, thus making this article strictly a statement of opinion.

Over 80 years ago, Mr. Murie, a biologist, witnessed “the joy a wild coyote took in being alive in the world (Flores 1)”, even though Mr. Murie intended to prove that the coyote is a dangerous predator this moment ended up changing his view. New York times author, Dan Flores, begins the article by setting up a pathos, making the reader feel that the coyote is more than just a predator. This paragraph also shows what he hopes to accomplish in the article, that readers will feel the same way that Mr. Murie did. From here he backs up this emotional claim with statistics from an animal welfare association. The author continues the essay by offering statistics from various sources, along with information from studies. The author has a well established ethos, not only because he is a The New York Times author, but more importantly he is the author of the book, Coyote America: A Natural and Supernatural History; which gives him great credibility on the

In conclusion, I don’t agree with big game hunting because statistics show that non lethal nature viewing benefits more than simply killing animals for money. Not only that, but they kill the animal, only taking the parts they want and leaving the rest to rot. To kill an innocent creature for bragging rights is simple

In addition, due to the pollution of chemicals into the environment, the animals and wildlife is also being contaminated. Therefore, they are force to either hunt

This was a sweet second chance story. A year ago Brody Martin was in love with Grace Thomas. He had a ring, and was about to ask her to be his wife. Grace was not ready to settle down. She left town with Lincoln, Brody's best friend, at the time. Grace got pregnant by Lincoln. When she told him, he demanded that she abort the baby. When she refused, He beat her. Grace run to the only place she felt safe, Martin's Crossing and into Brody's strong and protective arms.

Wildlife professionals like Michael P. Nelson argue that “some hunts are inconsistent with the tenet that wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate reason” (Michael P. Nelson, et al., 60). Another issue is the “elimination of markets for wildlife,” because many cases such as commercial fishing where there is a need for a food source, the market helps distribute the fish out. In correspondence with Michael P. Nelson, “developing a sustainable commercial harvest” should be the pillar, not just eliminating it (Michael P. Nelson, et al.,

Buzzle: Hunting Pros and Cons. Last but never least, sport hunting should be banned due to the fact that it causes the endanger and extinction of animal species. “One glaring negative of hunting for sport is over hunting. This occurs when hunters kill too many of a species, threatening their survival.” (Life123). Species become endangered when they are over hunted, and if hunters take it too far, the species will no longer exist. “…there are many animals that have been over-hunted and brought to near extinction, one example being the American Buffalo. Another example was the over-killing of the Cougar. Although this animal was hunted to protect cattle from being attacked, it led to this species nearly becoming extinct.” (Buzzle) The substandard thing about species becoming extinct is that they might not reappear until millions of years later. Imagine how long that would