I believe the way we think about the wilderness and bears might govern the way we interact with it. Therefore, although the wilderness can be a danger place I believe through education many none nature lover might be interested and willing to visit the wilderness and explore it beauty because they will know how to prevent and protect
Parents can choose what they want for there own children and let them do what they desire, and if that desire is hunting then let it be. When other people who oppose hunting try and stop this freedom then they are the ones at fault and are doing wrong by infringing on the rights of others. These actions are illegal and should be taken care of. In C M Dixon's article, "The Banning of Hunting is an Affront to Freedom," he stated that, "He has never heard of hunters violating the just requirements of public order or general welfare" (2). From the hunting experiences that I have had I agree with this statement one hundred percent.
The battles were held over a large span of land from battles in Canada all the way through Louisiana past the Mississippi River. The war ended with the English control of America and sole power in the region after the war. The conflict, which began in 1754, was mostly due to the overzealous and prideful French thinking the world was theirs for the taking and they wanted land for the fur trading business. As Moehl Mitchell, the author of Colonies Move Toward Independence says “The French were primarily interested in fur trading” (Mitchell). Unlike previous conflicts in the past between France and Britain, this one started in America.
For example, a rule can be made that wolves can only be hunted when they put in danger the lives of either livestock or humans. Outside times of self defense, it should still be illegal to hunt wolves as it was under the Endangered Species Act. If the wolves don’t present any threat to livestock, there shouldn’t be any reason to kill them. This is the perfect balance between hunting wolves and preservation that satisfies both the complaints of ranchers and desires of environmentalists.
So the oppositions argument that trapping isn’t natural isn’t quite true. With trappers outdoors they would be one of the first ones to notice if something was out of place or out of balance within nature so that a disaster or change in animal habits can be noticed and averted if necessary. The trapping license dollars went towards habitat management such as 31,800 acres of prescribed burning and 109,000 acres of water level management(Minnesota 119). These certainly helped the very fur bearers which from which the monies came from. Trapping has a much greater impact on wildlife today than most people give it credit for but the supports contained within should disprove any doubts.
Despite what is believed by many, with proper control, animals will not be hunted into extinction. Without some sort of wildlife management, our wild animal populations could become out of control. Works Cited Barkham, Patrick. "The Lions Bred for Slaughter." The Guardian.
There are regions with a lack of natural predators to control the animal population. This in turn causes safety concerns for residents. Many hunters feel they can control the ecosystem by hunting. P... ... middle of paper ... ...ibility to protect them. I believe that a certain amount of respect should be given to animals and should be cultivated at a young age.
In most places owning a dog or cat is second nature, but what about a tiger, bear or maybe python? Exotic pet ownership is far from having a clear right or wrong answer but it is in need of a ban for both the protection of animal and owner. For exotic pet owners, owning a wild beast insures a sense of power and uniqueness. It is also their way of contributing to the conservation of a species by having a “backup population” once human population growth and habitat destruction has resulted in extinction (Slater 113). But in reality the ownership of wild animals as pets only helps to damage already fragile ecosystems, both the one from which they came from and the new one in which they find themselves.
The American Indians were great hunters who collected many furs that were valuable trade products. After time some Indian tribes grew in debt with the settlers and the only way they could pay their debts is by giving them land. That is where the Europeans and the Indian's attitudes differ over land. The Indians were willing to sometimes negotiate about certain territories, where most of the Europeans were going to take the land whether the Indians were going to cooperate or not. Battles often broke out when larger Indian tribes felt they could fight for their land.
Because wolves regulate the carrying capacity, preserve the health of herds, and complete the ecological cycle in a balanced system, they must be restored to Yellowstone. To understand why wolves should inhabit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), we must first look to history. As Douglas Smith et al say, “The history of wolves in North America and the west is straightforward: we killed them” (108). This statement may sound simplified, but actual wolf extermination was thoughtless and thorough. Many wolves were removed from regions where they weren’t even threats to humans or livestock (Klinghammer 446) because wolves, like grizzlies, were perceived as competitors for land and food.