With its origin in the ancient times; hunting is still widely practiced all across the world. Some do it for fun, few do it for adventure and now the target is to reduce overpopulation of certain animal species by hunting. But, is this ethical? Hunting is one of those controversial topics that have no possible solution but continue to plague modern society. Human rights activists are totally against hunting. There are several pros and cons of hunting and having researched about all of them, I strongly condemn hunting to be a feasible way for eradication of overpopulated animal species. Humanity urges development of a pro-life stance amongst everyone and there are no valid reasons why humans would have the right to take lives. This just not concern animals, but such overactive psychologies can lead to other socially violent activities. Hunting should not be tolerated and is morally unacceptable.
HUNTING AND OVERPOPULATION
Hunting is morbid and subjecting any life to such cruelty is inhuman. In cases of overpopulation caused by abnormal natural occurrences, environmental methods of sustenance and conservation work naturally and bring about equilibrium. Nature has its own ways of providing a healthy life to the animals and survival of the fittest works even now. Therefore, to shoot an animal under the pretense of concern involving starvation or sickness is destructive. Animals tolerate painful deaths if they are injured by hunters and not killed. Those animals that escape from the hunters face starvation. Interruption in migration and hibernation patterns is caused by hunting. In Africa, the number of tuskless animals have increased due to elephant poaching, and in Canada, hunting has resulted in a reduced horn size of bighorn sheep’s (PETA).
According to The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the awareness about the overpopulation of various species can arouse owing to damage caused to their habitat by the development sector, or natural predators may have been eliminated. But, this is usually overlooked. Here, HSUS suggests “humane wildlife-population control” involving “immunocontraception”. Though this method, humans can control animal populations as and when necessary. This method utilizes the body’s immune response and puts off pregnancy. By implementing this method, issues of overpopulation is ideally prevented without harming the animal or the population. Deer and wild horse populations in the US and elephant populations in Africa are successfully controlled utilizing immunocontraception. Therefore, when there are scientific ways to harmlessly control overpopulation, there isn’t any rationality behind hunting in modern society.
Glenn Kirk of The Animals Voice noted that hunting causes severe suffering to wild animals and is “gratuitously cruel”. Hunting differs significantly from natural predation and hunters kill for pleasure-seeking purposes. Claims of balancing the wildlife population by hunting is actually void given that the hunters’ license are increasingly used to “manipulate a few game [target] species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance”. Also, a vast number of primary targets such as doves, wolves, squirrels and upland birds have least sustenance and do not demand population control (qt. in Davis’ “Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment?”). In a latest move, a five-year research project has been designed in one of the villages in the US to humanely stabilize the deer populations that thrive in the open habitat. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation approved the protocols and plans to involve highly skilled staffs from the HSUS to capture and inject a long-lasting form of the PZP vaccine to an estimated number of 60 female deer’s living in the Village of the Hastings-On-Hudson. Post-treatment, the deer’s will be observed for fawns and effectively control overpopulation (The Humane Society of the United States).
It is extremely difficult to justify hunting on moral grounds. Recreation is always a priority for the hunters, and massive financial deals are made between hunters and private land owners. However, mentioned below are few explanations offered by hunters to support the viability behind hunting.
JUSTIFYING HUNTING
According to The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), trapping or removal can be an effective tool for elimination of overtly populated habitats. Usually, deer’s are considered to cause massive overpopulation and the DNR tries to justify hunting as an effective population control tool. They strive to cater towards the well being of the species and maintain populations at par with human activities. Hunting serves as the core method for sustaining deer populations at proper levels throughout North America. In a better explanation, the DNR came up with a survey result that states that less than 4 percent of deer hunters in Maryland considered a trophy to be the sole reason behind deer hunting. Though the DNR tried a great extent in accounting for deer hunting, but sadly it had to unleash that recreation was definitely one of the reasons behind deer hunting.
Hunting gave rise to animal trafficking and involves huge ransom. It instigated several illegal activities worldwide and such acts should be penalized.
HUNTING AND ANIMAL TRAFFICKING
In Loew’s “Arizona organization protects 'canned' hunting”, canned hunts are big business that takes place on private lands. These places serve as “profit hunting reserves or game ranches”. Hunters often pay to kill animals that might be a native or bought from individuals involved in animal trafficking. Approximately, 5,000 “exotic ranchers” practice canned hunts in North America. Animals are kept in fenced enclosures from which they are unable to escape. Hunters pay a price to the owners and kill animals. Though states have restricted canned hunts, but there are no existing federal laws to stop such practices. Until the Congress co-sponsored bill- the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act is passed, it is impossible to stop trafficking and hunting of exotic species (Loew).
CONCLUSION
After a thorough research, it can be concluded that arguments over ethical hunting is baseless. Hunting is a vicious method to control overpopulation. In contemporary times that has an array of numerous scientific marvels; there is no possible reason to acknowledge the painful killing of animals. Concept of ethics doesn’t exist in hunting. Such practices lead to several criminal networks that can affect the human society as well. In several parts of the world, a number of popular animal species has fallen considerably. For instance, the restoration and preservation of tigers is extremely important.
There can be counter-arguments that hunting is also done for consumption purposes. But, it should be noted that hunting should not be tolerated if it poses threat to species and results in extinction. As far as population control is concerned, there are better ways to manage it and considering hunting as an overpopulation management should be legally banned.
Works cited
Davis, Bill. Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment? Scientific American. 10 Nov. 2009.
Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
PETA. Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary. 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Loew, Morgan. Arizona organization protects 'canned' hunting. CBS5. 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 23
Nov. 2014.
The Humane Society of the United States. Wildlife Overpopulation. 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Wildlife and Heritage Service. 2014.
Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
The Humane Society of the United States. Deer Fertility Control Research Project Launched in
The Village of Hastings-On-Hudson. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
