position paper

Anti Hunting
For the past 400 years hunting has been part of the American tradition. But as we move further away from our subsistence past the need for hunting has faded. Today hunting has become a big business. Just how big becomes obvious when one looks at the 22.9 billion spent on hunting alone in 2006. Another way hunting has changed is in the number of people that have taken to the woods. Even though the number of hunters has been declining over the past few years, there are still 12.5 million people who take part in hunting (US Fish and Wildlife `Service 2007). With that many people in the woods accidents are bound to happen. Probably the biggest change in hunting is the reason that people hunt, in the past people hunted as a means to provide food for their families. Today people hunt for sport and for trophy animals. This becomes apparent when we examine hunting methods used by modern hunters as laid out by the Humane Society (www.hsus.org). With all the changes that have occurred in the world we believe that hunting has become ineffective, unnecessary, and unsafe to use as a population control method.
There are two main reasons why hunting is an ineffective tool for management of a population. The first reason dealing with the fact that hunters are no longer hunting to provide food and are just interested in the trophy. This means that they do not target the part of the population responsible for producing offspring. When this portion of the population is not targeted the sex ratio can become skewed. The sex ratio refers to the number of females to males in a given population. When this number becomes skewed it can potentially lead to an increase in the overall population instead of keeping it in check. The example given in Alcorn’s “Hunting as Method of Population Control” refers to a herd of deer that has a 4:1 ratio of females to males. In this scenario there is a winter mortality of 100 animals lowering the population to 300. That leaves 240 females and 60 males. If all 240 females produce one offspring the population goes up to 540 individuals. The article states that the natural ratio is usually 1:1 at that level the population only increases to 450 (Alcorn 2007).
The other main reason that hunting is ineffective is that there has been a decline in the number of hunters over the past few years. A major reason for this decline is an increase in urban sprawl (Neelam et al. 2008). The article states that increased urbanization leads to loss of access to hunting lands and also a change in the culture. As rural areas become more urbanized people in the area may change choices in recreation from outdoor activities such as hunting to more indoor based recreation (Neelam et al. 2008). This change becomes evident in the national survey completed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. The survey showed that there was a decline in the overall number of hunters by 7 %. Some aspects of hunting are more stable than others such as big game hunting, on the other hand small game and migratory bird hunting have seen drastic declines of 12% and 22% respectively (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). With the decline in number hunters, how can they kill enough animals to keep wildlife populations from getting out of control?
The mere idea of hunting as a sport is immoral and deplorable. Sport hunting, at its most basic roots means killing animals for your enjoyment, with no real need for any of the meat or fur. Every animal has a right to life and the practical benefits must be sufficient enough to justify that death. Pleasure is not sufficient in justifying that death.
While many hunters may use and eat the meat of the animal they killed, it is generally not the purpose of the hunt to feed one-self but to find and kill. While some may hunt not just for the purpose of killing an animal but rather for the whole experience of the hunt, it still results in the deaths of defenseless animals. Many do hunt for the pure pleasure of the kill. Evidence of this is clear in some hunting methods that have been or are still around.
Internet hunting, a form of canned hunting that is now banned, has the “hunter” sign into a website and pay for an animal. The animal is then lured to an area within the range of a rifle that the ‘hunter’ controls via mouse, and is subsequently shot. While this method has been banned in many states the mere fact that it existed at all shows that people simply hunt for the enjoyment of killing (www.hsus.org).
Trophy hunting is another style of hunting, and while not based on enjoyment of killing, it is based on the glory and pride of presenting the head of a defenseless animal you killed to others. Safari Club International is a good example of this. The members all compete for the biggest trophy collections and do not stop at rare or endangered species. Many awards are available in different categories, and upon winning an award, the hunter gets their name printed in a record book (www.hsus.org).
Another method is contest hunting. Shooting hundreds of unsuspecting prairie dogs from far off with long range rapid-fire rifles is an example. Another form of contest hunting is using electronic calls to lure coyotes near enough to shoot, so hunters do not actually have to track down the animals. These electronic calls can include mimicking possible prey, or other coyotes (www.hsus.org).
There are many examples of these types of luring strategies. Bear baiting consists of hauling mounds of strong smelling meat, or trash into the woods and waiting for a bear to investigate. The hunter then kills the bear while it’s eating. Hound hunting is where the hunter has several dogs chase bears up trees where the hunter then shoots it at point blank range (www.hsus.org).
These methods of hunting do not suggest that the hunter is hunting for a deeper connection with nature, or for spiritual fulfillment, but rather their focus seems to be either the glory of showing off a particularly fine specimen of animal they killed, or for the sheer pleasure of taking the life away from an animal. While many argue that hunting is an important American tradition, this tradition has changed so much that the experience with nature and bonding has been replaced by the sole goal of killing something by almost any means necessary. Whether or not you hunt just to be closer to nature, or to just enjoy testing yourself, what happens in the end is a loss of life. You are equating your personal enjoyment or pleasure in that period of time to be worth more than the life of an animal.
Adding to the inhumanity of taking the life of these animals, is the way that many of these animals suffer because of the actions of the hunters. Animals that are wounded by hunters may eventually bleed out and die an agonizing death, or simply starve. Bow hunting is particularly cruel as it is not nearly as efficient as a gun. The animals shot with a bow die drawn out deaths. It has been estimated that fifty percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed. A British study also showed that ten percent of deer killed by hunters died only after two or more shots, and that some had suffered for as long as fifteen minutes. It has also been estimated that some 3 million wounded ducks each year are not retrieved. Trophy hunting adds to the suffering, as hunters are careful with their shots, not wanting to damage the parts of the animal that they wish to present as trophies (peta.org).
Even animals that escape hunters uninjured may still suffer. Animals such as deer have fat reserves that they build up for winter, stress caused by hunters, and the energy they use running from hunters can burn up these reserves. This can cause animals to starve. Close-knit communities can also be disrupted by hunting. Families of wolves especially can be devastated as they mate for life and live as a cohesive group (peta.org). Other social structures in animal life can also be devastated by the effects of hunting. One well-documented case involves wild boar in Central Europe. Male boar can live 30 or more years, and are usually sexually mature at ten or fifteen years. These male boars were often the target of hunters because they were the largest and had the largest tusks, when older males were not available hunters turned to the older larger females. As a result, none of the boars in central Europe are older than six and are mostly between the ages of one and two years old. The boars that are left are inexperienced and young, and depend on humans for food. In addition to this, where these boars were once diurnal, they have become nocturnal to avoid hunters. Also, because of the high death toll, the sexual maturation of these boars has decreased to about a year, and the rate of reproduction has increased. So while there may be a large population due to this high reproduction rate all that is left is a large group of very young boars who are incapable of independent survival and now rely heavily on humans for food. The structure that had supported them for many years was destroyed by the effects of hunting (Balluch).
Hunting can also be considered an unsafe practice. There are several incidents where experienced hunters have fallen victim to horrific accidents. One of the more tragic incidents happened to a young boy and his father when they were turkey hunting during the spring gobbler season. Sheriff Bruce Ponath said “that Anthony Klaseus of Belle Plaine Minnesota and his son Hunter were hunting turkey about three miles west of Belle Plain in Faxon Township around 6:30 p.m. Saturday when Klaseus shot his son in the chest with a 12 guage shotgun. Hunter was tagging along while his father hunted for turkeys in the woods off Sibley County Road 6. They were in an open field beyond this ridge when they spotted a group of turkeys on the other side of the field” (Nishikawa 2008). The father told his son to stay where he was, and that he was going to try to sneak up on the turkeys. However, the child moved along the grassy edge of the field, while his father entered the woods. The father mistook his son for a turkey and shot him when his came up out of the grassy area. Both were wearing camouflage and no blaze orange. Despite the father’s efforts to get his son the medical attention that he needed, in the end it was unsuccessful. Every year tragic accidents like this seem to show up everywhere. According to the International Hunter Education Association, in 1998, 603 non-fatal accidents and 65 fatal hunting accidents occurred involving two or more parties. Also, 319 accidents were self-inflicted, totaling 987 hunting accidents in 1998. Of those 987 accidents, 139 of them were mistaken-for-game accidents, 165 victims out of sight of the shooter, 36 victims moved into the line of fire, and 142 victims covered by shooter swinging on game (Lemming et al.1997).
There are 13 key rules to using firearms that should be implemented at all times. With that many rules to just carrying a firearm, how can a sport involving the use of firearms possibly be safe? Most of these rules include watching out for others and making sure you intend to kill what your muzzle is pointed towards. The fact that you must be ready to kill whatever is in front of your gun is quite scary. Some of these high powered hunting rifles can travel miles even when confronted with objects. A .308, a standard hunting rifle, can shoot well over a mile accurately. So if you’re hunting in the woods and you shoot into a hill there’s no guarantee that round won’t keep traveling. So how can you know what’s in front of your rifle when the round can travel further than the eye can see?
Also, as it stands right now in West Virginia, it is only a misdemeanor to fail to offer help to an injured hunter. So basically, if you shoot someone in the woods in West Virginia and just walk away you only face a misdemeanor (Jones 2009). However, there is strong support for bill 2695 to raise that penalty to a felony. Many hunters are hurt in hunting related accidents every year and the trend is not changing any time soon. The bottom line is that hunting is unsafe and the statistics are hard to ignore.
Another detrimental effect of hunting on the population is the increase of unwanted human/game interactions. Rawley Cogan, an elk biologist, said “if we reduce the herd by 14 percent, we will have a much higher replacement rate of younger, healthier specimens” (C.A.S.H. Courier 2004). This means that hunting will reduce the herd for the year but next year the population will be even higher. With this higher population every year human/game interactions rise respectively. This includes deer-related car collisions. It has been noted by the Erie Insurance Company that the number of deer-related car collisions rose nearly 5 times on the first day of buck season. Also, the most deer-related car collisions happen during hunting season according to The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (C.A.S.H. Courier 2004). In Ohio, State Highway Patrol recorded 28,240 reported deer-vehicle collisions in 2006, with 12 fatalities, and 1,024 injuries (Dubail 2007). Ohio is also ranked the fourth of the top ten states for deer-car accidents. State Farm Insurance Company estimated that 1.5 million vehicles are in a deer-car collision every year, resulting in 150 motorist deaths and $1.1 billion in damages to vehicles (CNN 2005). The ratings were based on the total number of deer-accident claims filed just with State Farm and were not adjusted for population.
Another effect of human game interaction is the spread of disease. One of the most common diseases that people come in contact with is Lyme disease. Lyme disease is contracted by humans when they are bitten by the deer tick. The deer is not the animal responsible for infecting the ticks. They become infected during their larval stage when they most commonly feed on mice and other small rodents. The next season when the ticks are in their nymph stage is when the deer and humans are most likely to be bitten by infected ticks. The only part that deer play in the spread of Lyme disease is transporting the ticks which may have already been infected with the disease (CDC.gov).
As shown above hunting has become an ineffective management tool because hunters only want to take the trophy animals, leaving too many animals to reproduce thus increasing the population. Hunting is an unsafe practice. Every year there are many hunters injured from accidents that occur in the woods. Another unsafe side effect of hunting is that during hunting season auto accidents due human/game interactions increase. Lastly hunting is an unnecessary practice. The cruel and immoral methods used to hunt show that people are not hunting because they need to but because they enjoy the sport of killing animals.

anti hunting outline

Paper Outline:
Position Statement: Hunting is not a good way to control populations of animals. It is also an unsafe practice. Hunting is unnecessary; people do not need to hunt to survive. Killing for pleasure is immoral and does not respect the rights that animals have to life.

Hunting is an ineffective method for controlling the herd:
Hunting is an ineffective management tool because the number of hunters has been declining.
Hunting does not lower the population
Hunting is ineffective because as more areas become developed the ability to hunt decreases allowing the population to grow.

Hunting is unnecessary and immoral:
Unethical hunting methods take away an animal’s freedom and ability to escape hunters
Hunters do not need to hunt, it is done for sport which means that the pleasure of humans is put above the animals rights.
Animals that are shot and wounded by hunters suffer prolonged deaths.

Hunting is an unsafe practice:
Hunter injuries occur even when experienced hunter take to the woods
Firearm safety rules to use when carrying a gun in the woods
Legislation for improved prosecution of hunters who cause injury in the woods
Increased collisions between deer and cars during hunting seasons
People who spend time outdoors may have an increased risk of contracting Lyme Disease