Is high fence hunting ethical? This is a question that has enticed many avid hunters and non-hunters. High fence hunting is becoming more popular and is most commonly associated with trophy deer hunts, typically with very high prices. The most common argument is the statement “high fence hunting is not fair chase nor is it ethical.” First, we must specifically define fair chase and how it does and doesn’t play a role within the argument. Defined by The Boone and Crockett Club, fair chase is “the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free ranging wild, native north American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.” What else makes a hunt a fair chase hunt? Some …show more content…
Besides the fact many fenced properties raise trophy class animals, although it all ranges on how big your pocket book is. Many of the landowners of these high fenced properties say it is due to the heavy use of public land of many other hunters. Some individuals simply do not want to compete with other hunters for the same location or even hunt the same specific animal(s) for that matter. Although many public lands are hundreds and even thousands of acres, some hunters would just rather pay the extremely high price to hunt somewhere private. Even if this means only hunting once or twice a year versus going out almost every weekend due to the overwhelming cost. Some hunters look to it as if they are generally guaranteed to kill a trophy class animal so why hunt public lands and just dream of that opportunity. Also, many hunters are beginning to go this route because many animals on public land are killed before ever reaching maturity. Therefore, this instance occurring continues to lower the percentage of killing a mature animal on public land, and it drives many hunters to different choices of where they will hunt in the future. High fenced enclosures also spike the risk of possible diseases. Of course, every animal has its own way of fighting disease and its own direct or indirect causes of disease. This implies to any animal whether it is held in an enclosure or is free …show more content…
Some lean towards the advantages of it, and others lean to how unethical it truly is. I personally hunt public land, it is indeed true to me that many animals are harvested before they reach maturity. Now does that make me believe high fence hunting is that every bit more ethical because of its capability to hold trophy class animals? No, of course it doesn’t. Growing a population to a trophy size just for someone to pay an enormous price to hunt and harvest an animal is completely unethical and absurd to me. I relate it to a “zoo with benefits”. Many other hunters stand where I stand in this argument. Yes, certain aspects of the hunt vary like wind, location, terrain, and land acreage. But, regardless of the size of a high fenced area it is still not considered fair chase to me when an animal is harvested. On the other hand, I support the financial value high fence hunting brings to landowners and operators. The income they receive is directly used generally to help further manage the property’s
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.
The “Bucks only” laws passed years ago to help in re-establishing the dwindling deer herds now work against the deer by resulting in an overabundance of does. Even with the overabundance of does, many hunters refuse to shoot a doe. They believe in the old saying, “It takes a doe to yield a buck.” This is entirely true, but it ignores the basic law of nature that any piece of land, and the food and cover in it, can support so much game. If the excess game is not harvested by hunters or killed by predators, nature will take over and exterminate enough animals as needed, or more through disease and starvation.
Environmentalists call this problem the Urban Deer Dilemma. This exists when the number of deer exceeds the ability of the environment to support the deer (2). During the 1600s, when Jamestown’s first settlers arrived, there were between 24 and 31 million white-tailed deer in North America (4). As settlers pioneered farther west, the deer population steadily decreased until a dramatic drop in the 19th century. By the end of the century, less than half-a-million deer were left. In some parts of the United States, there were none. In 1886, the US Supreme Court forced hunters to get licenses and follow certain restrictions. Conservationists urged hunters kill bucks instead of does. Because of these precautions, by the 1940s, 30 states in the United States had deer herds large enough to starve themselves (4).
Since the beginning of time man has been hunting animals for food. Even before fire, man needed to hunt, because hunting was the only way to eat. At first man used things such as spears and rocks to kill its prey. As man evolved, they started using bows and arrows. Next came an early model of what we use today, the firearm. It is powerful yet easy to carry around. It puts the animal through less suffering and is a lot more efficient than previous techniques. Hunting was once a necessity, but now it is a tradition, passed on from father to son as a way to spend time together, enjoy the outdoors, and experience what our ancestors went through in hunting their dinner. Since it is considered a sport some think we are killing off the deer population, when in actuality, “While most other big-game species have declined with the spread of urbanization, the whitetail has been able to adapt to its ever-changing environment. Through the efforts of state agencies and conservation groups like Whitetails Unlimited, wildlife officials estimate today’s whitetail population to exceed 30 million” (www.whitetailsunlimited.org).
Some may say that the main purpose of this activity is to have fun with family or friends, others affirm that it helps to keep a balance between species or even that it helps to keep a good economy but what about the animals? Did any of them deserve to die so that humans are no longer bored? Were they a hazard to human life? I don’t think so. So in this essay I’m going to present why Animal trophy hunting should be prohibited and removed from our lives.
When many people think of hunting they think of cruel, evil people senselessly killing innocent animals. What they don’t realize is that hunting is a passed down tradition and a way for people to bond with others who share a love for the sport. There are two main types of hunting: bowhunting and hunting with a rifle. There are strict rules and regulations that apply to hunting, so someone can’t just go out and start shooting up all the animals. Before anyone can hunt, they have to pass a class and a field test in order to get their license. Without a license, you can’t buy tags. A tag is a paper that you buy in order to be able to kill an animal. You can hunt many different types of animals from birds to bears, but in this essay I will be talking specifically about big game. Big game is referred to as deer, elk, bear, and cougar. Although many people believe that big game hunting should be banned in the United States, they overlook the fact that hunting does more good than harm.
One of the most imperative reasons to ban trophy hunting is because it creates an imbalance in which it can lead to what scientists refer as ¨evolution in reverse¨. Jeffrey Flocken from CNN claims that trophy hunting is part of the tendency referred as “survival of the weakest”. Scientists
It’s a brisk November morning like any other day, but today isn’t any other day, today is the first day of firearm deer season. Shots are going off everywhere like world war three declared on deer. I’m wrapped in every hunting garment I own but winters cold embrace always finds its way in. My cheeks are rosy red and my breath was thick in the air. As I raise my shotgun and pull the trigger, my heart races and my hands shake. As I race after my prize, the sounds of leaves crunching beneath my feet are muffled by the ringing in my ears. I’m walking face to the ground like a hound on a trail and then my eyes caught it, my very first whitetail. I will never forget my first deer and the joy I felt sharing it with my family. Hunting is a passed down tradition for my family and friends. Throughout the world, millions of people participate in the spoils and adventure of the hunt. Hunting has been a pastime since the beginning of man. Hunting is one of those things either you like or you don’t like. It’s hard to explain the joys of hunting ,because it’s something one must experience for his self. Hunting does have laws and regulations you have to abide by. Are hunting regulations benefiting the hunter or the animal? This paper will discuss some of the regulations and laws, types of game, disadvantages of regulations, the pros of regulations, poachers, and ways to preserve wildlife and there habitat.
Years ago, killing animals for food was part of the average man’s everyday life. While, now a days, hunting is questioned by many across the world because it is commonly viewed as a recreational activity. Many residents have a problem with the dangers that come with hunting. Not to mention, as time goes on, society seems to feel differently about animals and how they should be treated. One of the biggest debates is the harvest of white tailed deer. All over the United States, white tailed deer thrive because of the few predators that feast upon them and the large forests and habitats that these deer can flourish in. However, as buildings and subdivisions pop up left and right decreasing the white tailed deer natural habitat, the debate grows stronger. The heart of the debate is centered around ethical issues, human and deer conflicts, safety, and the benefits hunting has on the economy.
The topic of hunting has always been filled with controversy, excitement and trepidation for the environment. Both sides have varies ideas as to what is wrong and right. I realize that many people do not understand why people have to hunt or why people do hunt. One of the questions that kept coming to mind is why so many people are against hunting when their ancestors hunted and without hunting many of them would not be alive today. This question is relevant because many people are becoming to be worried that animals are in pain when being hunted and that it is unfair for people to hunt selfless animals with modern weaponry, and with many people going against the right to own guns.
Now in modern day, populations are more stable and the debate of bringing a wolf hunting season back in Yellowstone as well as across the United States is becoming increasingly popular. While some may argue wolves pose a threat to human safety and are apart of hunting tradition, others defend the welfare of wolves and value of all lives. There are statements and question people must ask themselves to determine if hunting wolves is ethical. The Wildlife Society as published 7 statements called The Model which is a basis of ideas for society to consider if hunting of an animal is ethical (Organ et al. 2012): One of the main reasons for hunting wolves is the safety of humans. In the eyes of many, human lives are put at a higher status than those of animals.
Hundreds of thousands of deer are killed every year by cars and are left to die on the side of the road. “I have been hunting with my family for over 4 years and I am a better person because of it.” This quote was by Randy Augsburger. Many people state that hunting is inhumane, but isn’t running over a deer just as inhumane, if not worse? In my opinion hunting should not be outlawed.
Make sure that your property provides the wildlife basic needs like year-round food supply, water, places to rest, etc. Also, be familiar with the life cycles of the animals and take steps to support the wildlife habitat. Prefer quality lessees Besides making everything perfect from your end, it is also important to ensure that the hunters are also in sync with your expectations in order to make a friendly and a profitable deal.
& nbsp; Hunting on private lands is one of the best ways to hunt, because the game is plentiful, and there is a challenge to the sport. However, when lands are. owners encounter a slob hunter on their lands, they are much less likely to let. anyone hunt their land in the future? When a person wishes to hunt on a certain person's land, s/he is often denied the privilege, after the proprietor of the land has had one negative experience with some other hunters.
An example of these unethical problems is displayed through the killing of animals that often happens when zoos consider them surplus to their park. The act of killing animals due to captivity restrictions and a surplus amount of certain species within zoos has become known as “zoothanasia,” predominantly a problem throughout Europe. According to the article “Cruel to be Kind?” by Marc Bekoff and Daniel Ramp, the killings of surplus animals have reached around 5,000 annually alone in Europe and show how, “human interests trump those of the non-human animals.” These animals are, “harmed or killed ‘in the name of conservation’, or for the ‘good of their own (or other) species’” (Bekoff and Ramp). These deaths are decided by human zookeepers and inconsiderate to the value of an animal’s life. The result of this is unnecessary suffering and morally unacceptable outcomes. Hence, this presents a clear unethical dilemma that would not be a problem if the animals weren’t in captivity to begin with, or if zoos decided to release surplus animals back into the wild. In their natural and wild environments, too many of one species would not be problematic. The animals could live peacefully without the threat of being killed off because they didn’t fit into a specific breeding program or the zoo needed more room for endangered