I have studied Fox hunting, and I agree wholeheartedly with this
statement. I have heard interviews with hunt supporters in which they
say that fox hunting does a huge job for farmers in keeping fox
numbers down. I cannot believe that this is true, and having
researched it on the internet I have found that at least 2 scientific
studies have concluded that statistically the numbers of foxes killed
by hunts is insignificant. I appreciate that killing the fox and
keeping numbers down is not the only reason that hunts take place, but
it is often used as an excuse for the purpose of fox hunting; hence
hunt supporters appear to contradict themselves in their response to
individual questions on why they hunt and group responses to political
criticism or pressure from animal rights groups.
In my research on fox hunting I have discovered that a fox hunt of
some sort takes place in a number of European countries, America,
Canada, Russia and elsewhere. I found these statements on the Masters
of Foxhounds Association of America (MFAA) website (
http://www.mfha.com ) :
"In Britain the goal is to kill the fox. Because there is no rabies in
the British Isles, populations of fox are extremely high and fox are
considered vermin."
"Farmers with sheep farms want the animal numbers controlled. In
America this is not normally the case. A successful hunt ends when the
fox is accounted for by entering a hole in the ground, called an
earth. Once there, hounds are rewarded with praise from their
huntsman. The fox gets away and is chased another day." The MFAA's
Code of Hunting Practices does not rule out killing the quarry - but
does not allow digging out of an animal once it has gone to ground.
Because of Northern America's "more sporting" approach to hunting with
hounds, there is much less organized opposition to the sport.
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)'s Cindy Milburn said: "I
have heard fox hunters in the USA boast that they haven't actually
I am writing on behalf of my thoughts and myself about gun control laws. My position on this topic is neutral leaning towards the "No Gun" law. The idea of a federal law to ban these guns is a good idea, but it could be better. I believe strongly that guns should be banned from our country in some kind of way, but there are exceptions like for law enforcement and hunters. This law could lower the murder and death rates drastically. The US would be a whole different and safer country to live in. No one should live in a society where they are afraid of being killed by a gun, we should try harder to make this society in the US a better place. I have many reasons to back my views on this topic, and here are some main reasons that you should really think about.
When a Minnesota dentist killed a prized African lion named "Cecil" he received an onslaught of criticism and reignited the debate concerning big game hunting. Is big game hunting wrong? Should big game hunting continue? Big game hunting has been a very controversial topic for some time and these types of questions are being asked daily. There are a lot of people for it and a lot of people against it. This issue causes a lot of extreme behaviors and ideas by both sides. Those who oppose it believe it to be morally wrong, unfair to the animals and damaging to the environment. Those individuals for it believe that it is the citizens' rights and a way to be involved in the environment. Hunting is the law and shall not be infringed upon. In defense of the hunters' I believe that there are five main issues of concern.
Since the European colonization of eastern Africa, big game hunting, also know as "trophy hunting", has been a very controversial topic. During the early days of trophy hunting, dwindling numbers of some of the world’s most unique and prized wildlife was not a problem like it is today. When a trophy hunting dentist from Minnesota paid $55,000 to kill a prized African lion, he unintentionally reignited the heated debate concerning big game hunting. Wildlife conservationists and hunters debate the impact of hunting on the economy and the environment. Legal hunting can be controlled without government intervention, and the expensive sport of trophy hunting could generate a large sum of money to support conservation efforts.
Saunders, G. and McLeod L. 2007. Improving fox management strategies in Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia.
“For us hunting wasn’t a sport. It was a way to be intimate with nature” (Kerasote). Many would disagree with Kerasote’s quote merely because he or she doesn’t see how hunting can be more than just killing of an animal. However hunters don’t just go out, because they enjoy killing animals no there is much more to it than just blood lust. Four out of five hunters I asked said the main reason they go out hunting would be because it is therapeutic. “Nothing like going out on a frigid morning sitting in your deer stand waiting and watching nature, it’s so surreal” (Koch). Nathan, hunter of 30 years, said this after I asked why he chooses to hunt. It may not come as a surprise to some to hear that Missouri placed eighth in the top ten states for
Hunting for sport is legal, and should remain that way. Many arguments against hunting for sport claim it is a “violent form of recreation” and “we have no right to take an animals life” for example, an opposing viewpoints article “Sport Hunting is an Unnecessary Form of Cruelty to Animals” says just that. HoweverI argue that we are part of this planet, as well as it’s ecosystem. We are (in ways) predators. An article on sport hunting, “Hunting for Sport” compares “hunters and the hunted” to a mountain lion and a deer. Is the lion at fault for hunting the deer? No. The mountain lion’s duty is to play the role as predator as well as keeping it’s prey’s population away from its ecosystems capacity. The ecosystem can no longer always support and control all animals populations.
Wolves, as with most wild animals, need to be hunted and regulated. For generations people have been hunting wolves for their pelts, and to keep families, pets and livestock safe. By hunting wolves we can also keep the wolf packs healthier while making sure they don’t get over run with disease. It also assures that hunters will have wild game for sport and food. Wolves cause a major threat to families, their livestock, wild game animals and to bear hunters’ dogs living in rural areas. Wolves are a growing threat and they should be legally regulated by the process of hunting and trapping so they are kept down to a healthy number.
It is early in the morning; the majestic Elk bugles in the distance. The sun is kissing the tops of the peaks with the most beautiful gold, and painting the clouds rose red. The men and women who enjoy the outdoors whether it is hunting or just hiking help make these types of moments possible. Hunting and the ecosystem is tied closely to conservation of land and animals. The articles of “Hunting and the ecosystem” written by the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks Department (SDGFP), and “Facts and statistics on wildlife conservation” written by Roger Holmes, director of the Fish and Wildlife, touch on how hunting is important in the environment to keep a good balance in the ecosystem. They also point out how hunters do more than any other organization for wildlife and environment. Our country was created by outdoors men who hunted and they passed their knowledge of the outdoors to their kids. Hunting has worked its way down from the generation and we should learn to “pass it on” Hunting is great for the environment and wildlife and should be preserved for the ages to come.
All kids under Wisconsin law can shoot a hunting rifle. Some people debate that kids should not shoot guns however some people believe if kids are trained early on that can start hunting early. There should be an age limit on kids to go hunting with guns.
Hunting as we all know can be a very controversial sport in the eyes of the public. Hunting as described by Webster’s Dictionary is the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals. There are numerous different ways to hunt the same animal as well as innumerable different species of animals to hunt. Hunting includes trapping, shooting, and even fishing. Americans tend to hunt for the sport of it while citizens of other countries often depend on the catch of the prey to feed their families and communities.
In 1938, dogs made up 89.9% of all rabid cases reported in the United States and rabies itself was responsible for the deaths of 47 people that year. However, that number went down after the 1960’s as dogs made up only 3.6% of reported cases and eventually the virus killed about one person a year. This successful shift was due not only to more vaccinations in animals, but strict laws and rules enforced in different countries to exterminate the rabies virus (Baer 3).
What is the biggest reason for hunting? Many people argue over the fact if hunting should be kept or gotten rid of. It is a disputed item for many people. Hunting is a good thing and shouldn't be gotten rid of due to four main facts: it is a way of life, it can control animal populations, it is a job for some people, and it helps people physically.
Where there is a line between trying to preserve your culture and heritage, and being on the same page with the modern moral values? It is hard to reply to this question because there is no right or wrong answer. One of the examples of this question is the situation on Faroe Islands. People of Faroe Islands have been hunting long pilot whales for centuries; it is part of their culture and part of their identity. Also, it is one of the food sources that they have. However the world is concerned with the custom on the islands. A big number of whales get killed every year by the locals. The act is so cruel that the sea water turns red from the spilled blood. Then the new questions appear: is the hunt still necessary, why the government of Denmark cannot provide a better lifestyle to its people, why such a cruelty still exists today. Based on the research, the whale hunting should be banned because it is dangerous to people’s health, it is outdated tradition, and it is a cruel act.
Animals are used in research to develop new medicines and for scientists to test the safety of the medicines. This animal testing is called vivisection. Research is being carried out at universities, medical schools and even in primary and elementary schools as well as in commercial facilities which provide animal experiments to industry. (UK Parliament) In addition, animals are also used in cosmetic testing, toxicology tests, “defense research” and “xenotransplantation”. All around the world, a huge amount of animals are sentenced to life in a laboratory cage and they are obliged to feel loneliness and pain. In addition scientists causing pain, most drugs that pas successfully in animals fail in humans. It is qualified as a bad science. Above all, animals have rights not to be harmed even though the Animal Welfare Act does not provide them even with minimal protection. The law does not find it necessary to use current alternatives to animals, even if they are obtainable. Animal testing should be banned due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and the unreliability of test results in humans.
Zoos are an unsuitable environment for wild animals and should, therefore, be abolished. Firstly, zoo animals are kept in a very confined area compared with their vast natural habitat. Secondly, breeding programmes are far less successful than zoos claim. Thirdly, zoo animals are exposed to many diseases and other dangers.