My hunting paper

[PickerelHunter]

I'm finally finished!!! I warn you that this paper is fairly long, but I would appreciate if some read this just to let me know what they think. Since it's due tomorrow night I probably won't be able to change anything major in the sense of re writing the paper, but any input would help me out before I hand it in to the Prof. Here it is boys, copied and pasted...Also, please keep in mind this is supposed to represent an academic paper, and there's lot's of technicalities within that that might make it boring or sound different from a normal argument, so be patient please

*****************************************************************************************

I quietly walked through the forest, in between the massive pine trees with a scent that reminded me of summer camp when I was a child. I stopped to take in the scenery that was forming in front of me with the coming of the morning sun. The light had to work its way through the small openings between the pine trees, giving an image of scattered sunrays filtering the air in front of me. The sounds of birds chirping and a loon calling completed this wonderful and natural image that I feel every time I come here. My thoughts shift to how people hundreds, even thousands of years ago must have felt when participating in this type of activity on almost a daily basis. The oneness with nature, the understanding of the beauty that earth has to offer, are just the beginnings of the thoughts that run through my mind. I am abruptly taken back from my thoughts by the sound of a cracking branch no more then 100 yards away. I stand still and turn towards the noise to get a glimpse of what made the sound. As quietly as ever, ensuring that I don't even rustle an old leaf on the ground, I creep closer to get a better look. A wonderful white-tailed deer is grazing in a small grass opening in the distance, away from the massive pines. In the slowest of slow motion, I reach behind me to grab my bow and and arrow. I lock in on my target, pull back, and fire, connecting with my target with sheer precision. A feeling of completeness and excitement runs through my body as I run over to my prey to ensure that it is dead and not suffering any further. Seeing where the arrow hit, I know that it was an instant kill, giving me even more gratification at the sight of so little suffering from the prey. Out of nowhere my father runs to me with a smile on his face that could be seen from miles away, and says "Congratulations son, looks like I've taught you well, I'm proud of you." For a split second I stop to think about the morality of what I've done, mainly from ideas that anti-hunting groups such of PETA have attempted to brainwash into our heads; but for the rest of that second I recall what I've just experienced, and know that there is nothing wrong with this natural practice. The hunting experience has just become complete.

Since the beginning of our species, the roles of hunter and gatherer have been used throughout our history. The progression to use tools and fire to obtain and prepare food are one to the key aspects of the evolution of our species. Since the beginning of mankind, humans have been predators in search of food to ensure nourishment for each individual. Hunting was a necessity as a food source. Within the last 500 years, especially within the last century, the necessity of hunting has diminished because of many other alternatives to meat as food, such as the sophistication and success of farming techniques for plant food. Humans have hunted during all phases of social change and evolutionary development as one of many ways of providing food, why should hunting now be looked down upon just because there are other sources of food? (List, 2004) The term hunting, by many anti-hunting groups, has been given the definition of the intentional killing of wild animals (List, 2004). This gives a false image of pointless death and waste of carcasses, without any meaning behind it. There's no doubt that hunting does involve killing, but why not consider some of the positives gained from it, such as the meat of the prey. A better definition of hunting would be that hunting is the killing of wild animals in search of obtaining some sort of human good (List, 2004). Rarely do you see carcasses left after they've been shot by hunters, but if this does happen then these individuals are not hunting nor are they hunters, they are killers and cannot be used within an argument against hunting. To further some clarification of definitions, with the necessity to hunt for food being lessened, the term sport hunting has been imbedded into this ancient activity within the last few decades. The term sport hunting refers to any hunting that is done by individuals or communities that do not solely rely on animal fare as a food source (List, 2004; Peterson, 2004). Critics can argue that some small and remote villages, such as those found in northern Canada, or others found within the vast jungles of the Amazon, would still fit into the category of necessary hunting, or in more proper terms, substinence hunting (List, 2004). List (2004) argues this view because critics make hunting ethical if it's for survival purposes. The main argument that anti-hunting groups have is that hunting is morally wrong because of harm done to the animals. So if that is the belief of these individuals, how can they accept substenance hunting? There is still just as much harm done to animals within these groups of substenence hunters as there is from sport hunters. With this reason to oppose hunting (the fact that harm is done to animals), individuals, no matter under what circumstance, should either oppose hunting in any form or support hunting in either form. Why does survival make it ethical to harm animals? The individuals within "substinence" hunting groups do have other options at their hands, such as harvesting and eating plant food, or if that's not available, relocation to areas where it would be. So it is difficult to support the argument that anyone in this world would be under the category of hunting solely for the necessity of a food source, because there are always other options out there. Critics understand that they can't object all hunting because it would be unethical to object an individuals needs, thus they try to find morally relevant differences in substinence hunting and sport hunting (List, 2004). Therefore, giving some exceptions condoning hunting by these anti-hunting groups is problematic, unfair, and weakens their arguement. One important thing that needs to be remembered is that it is not the suffering of animals that is enjoyed within the sport of hunting (Roger, 2000). It is naturally evil to enjoy the loss of life for the sake of the loss of life itself, and society sees this a wrong. Hunting does not condone this nor is it seen within the sport. As stated earlier "hunting should be understood as the killing or capturing of wild animals in order to obtain some human goods" (List, 2004, p. 158) thus it is not the enjoyment of the suffering or loss of life. This is also supported by Gilbert (2000) where he states that "the joy is in the challenge of stalking and exercising skill to take the [animal], not in the death of the animal" (p. 460). List (2004) further supports his argument by stating that the killing of the animal is the means in acquiring the ends, which are the goods of the animal (meat, fur etc).

One approach in providing an argument that hunting is ethical can be seen through an approach that Peterson (2004) calls "The Naturalness Approach". This approach looks at the natural aspects of predator vs. prey environments throughout the world and throughout time. Carnivorous predation is an evolved relationship between different species in a food chain, the goal of which is the acquisition of a good (List, 2004). Humans are predators and hunting is the only way for them to enter nature as a participant rather than a spectator (Peterson, 2004). To Peterson this is enough to justify the ethics of hunting because it is a natural human role. Another common explanation for hunting being ethical throughout the research is that it serves as a means of wildlife management. Wildlife management can be summed up as ensuring that the environment and the plants and animals within it are living healthy. Wildlife management looks at keeping stable animal populations without over populating, it looks at preserving the natural habitat for animals, and ensures healthy populations are living within the habitat. Rick O'Banion (personal communication, March 10, 2006), who is the current interim President of the Niagara Federation of Anglers and Hunters, states that hunting is a necessary part of wildlife management, simply because we have displaced the natural predators of many species. To support his argument, he states an example from the Niagara Region where the wolf and bear populations were forced from their habitat by urban sprawl. Without the predators, unchecked populations of animals such as deer can result in catastrophic results for the animal and for man. Furthermore, Sheppard (as cited in Peterson, 2004) expresses that man is in part a carnivore; the prey must have the predator just as the predator needs the prey, one without the other becomes something less. To support O'Banion's views, Peterson (2004) confirms that hunting is an honest relationship with nature in comparison to other things that humans do, including those in anti-hunting groups. Peterson (2004) states that "some wildlife mortality is inflicted by human society via vehicle collision, urban sprawl, and conversion of habitat to the agricultural lands that provide sustenance to all humans" (p. 312). O'Banion goes further in discussing that Chronic Wasting Disease (a fatal neurological disease affecting deer and elk), tick infestations and starvation are a real problem in areas of uncontrolled wildlife populations. These health issues can devastate an otherwise healthy population. Hunting helps greatly in areas where predation has been hindered due to a small population of predators. Dan Andrews, who is an active member in many hunting and angling organizations throughout the Niagara Region, says that fisherman (and hunters) are generally the first to spot any signs of habitat and wildlife problems and relay that message to the proper authorities, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources (personal communication, March 10, 2006). The benefits that hunters provide within wildlife management is profound. Peterson (2004) sums it up best by stating that "wildlife management would be severely weakened" without hunters and sport hunting because hunters are the best source of information as they are the ones closest to the wildlife.

Animals that are hunted, by humans or by other predators, have something that List (2004) names the "Fair Chase". This basically states that the prey is in it's natural habitat and has a fair chance to escape, and in many situations prevails over the predator and escapes. The wonderful thing about hunting is that not catching or killing an animal can also achieve the human goods that are sought after through hunting. These goods are the same as when killing the animal, except they are missing the meat, and fur and anything else that the animal itself would provide. The hunter still leaves the hunting grounds with the experience of the hunt, the appreciation of nature, the animals, and the habitat, the skills involved in hunting, and the attributes that hunting builds, such as patience, respect and companionship.

The most alarming thing that animal rights groups are doing, most notably The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is that they categorize all animals, including humans, as being the same. The PETA website states that "helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings. Animal suffering and human suffering are [the same]". The most striking comment on the website was a question that asked if hunting would be ethical as long as the person eats what they kill; to that response PETA states that "Did the fact that Jeffery Dalmer eat his victims justify his crimes?" (retrieved March 11, 2006 from http://www.peta.org/about/faq-wild.asp). These types of responses are common throughout these animal rights groups. They continue to connect animals to humans by giving examples of human vs. human situations and how their wrong, thus doing that to an animal is wrong as well. The response to this narrow-minded thought process leads back to the predator vs. prey scenario, not all animals are in the same line within a natural food chain. To continue along this narrow-minded approach, the hunter can respond by saying that if it's unethical or wrong for humans to kill animals in order to obtain a good, than why wouldn't it be unethical for other predators, such as lions or bears, to do the same? If these animal rights activists group all animals as the same, then all predators are unethical, meaning all predators need to stop killing animals, and this unfortunately does not make sense and is not a reality, which further weakens their argument.

With all the information that has been presented, the question still remains, is hunting ethical? To convince the reader that hunting is ethical, the definition of ethical should be explained. According to the Webster’s Dictionary, ethical is "Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession". This definition is great, but hunting could be described as ethical in a few sentences if trying to prove ethics just from that simple statement. There are laws that govern hunting, which make them legal and anyone hunting within the legal limits as drawn out by law is hunting ethically. Instead let's consider society as the governing body that has principles of right and wrong, and hunting as being the profession in question, does hunting still prove ethical to society? Let's first consider a study done by the Vegetarian Resource Group in 1994, the study concluded that less than 1% of American's were vegetarians (did not eat meat or fish). Thus over 99% of people eat animal meat, which must be concluded that over 99% of the population understands and accepts, or more properly for this arguments, finds it right to kill animals and eat them (if they didn't they wouldn't support it by eating them). Surely 99% of the population is not eating meat as their only possible source of food, thus society must accept that animals are killed in order to feed them. This still doesn't fully support sport hunting as being ethical because hunting is a much different way to obtain animal goods than usual meat found at grocery stores and restaurants. Now let's remember the "Fair Chase" theory that List (2004) stated. The understanding of the fair chase, that the animal has a fair chance to escape, should further justify the ethics of hunting by surpassing other forms of obtaining animal meat, such as stocked farms, where animals are not given this chance to escape or fight for themselves. As stated earlier, hunting is the killing of wild animals in search of obtaining some sort of human good (List, 2004). A clearer definition could possibly in itself prove that hunting is ethical without the need for a prolonged discussion. Using the definition supported by anti-hunting groups, and modifying it from literature on hunting to actually show the reality of the activity, and furthermore include the "Fair Chase" theory within a definition could possibly be the way to prove that hunting is ethical. Putting all these aspects together creates this definition; "hunting is the killing of wild animals within their natural habitats in search of obtaining some sort of human good". This definition shows the reality of the sport (killing wild animals), the understanding of the predator vs. prey scenario (killing...in search of obtaining some sort of...good), a brief understanding of the "Fair Chase" theory (by reminding the reader these animals are in their natural habitats) and that a human good, be it material or intrinsic, is obtained in the process. To further support that hunting is ethical, we can look at how hunters positively impact wildlife management, and as proven by literature, specifically Peterson (2004) and a personal communication with Dan Andrews and Rick O'Banion, that hunters are the single most important resource of information of new environmental and wildlife issues. There is a far greater good in hunting than any negatives that anti-hunting groups claim take place. Hunting fulfils the criteria of being ethical within a societal scope, and it could even be argued that it is the most ethical way of obtaining human goods from animals because it give the animals a chance to act naturally within a prey vs. predator world.

[smerchly]

That is the longest post I have ever read....and glad I read it all ! I think you did a fantastic job P.H. and it was well written and to the point . Hope you don't mind me printing it out for future reference . I could add more to the peta people motives and misguided thinking , but I'll reserve that for any future propaganda that spews out of their next revelations ! Thanks for the effort you put into this , and this reader gives you an "A" for a great report !

[Dan Andrews]

Hey I'm honored to be mentioned. Run it through microsoft word though for gramar and stuff.

I've always said I'd rather kill a deer in a field where it has the chance to escape then simply walk up and cut the throat of a cow in a slaughter house. I wouldn't add that though because it just fuels an argument of how unethical all meat eaters are . They always go veg when you argue the benefits of hunting over farmed meat.

One thing you never touched on was natural selection. Lions and other predators for instance usually target the sick or week. The healthiest or smartest are first to escape leaving the gene pool in a better state. I'll tell you right now if I can sneak up on a deer and get close enough to put an arrow in it, that deer must be pretty stupid .

I don't yet hunt by the way but I have to defend what I believe is right.

Good Paper

[smerchly]

I thought there would be more replies to this , but I think there is prob. only a few hunters on this site . I used to hunt ,but gave it up for various reasons , but we still need to support hunters since it's another one of our rights , like fishing . If we let the do- gooders get their way with hunting , fishing will be their next agenda , and so on.......Hope to hear more on this PH and see what the results are of this debate ....from both sides .

[Dan Andrews]

I talked to our zone rep about putting a rebuttle in the star to a letter that was pure lies and mistruths like the OFAH wants to exterminate cormorants and that they feed primarily on invasives. He told me something that makes sense. He said the anti's make their money by keeping their propaganda in the spotlight. The aching hearts then donate to them so by keeping the war going in the papers your actually helping them.

How else are you supposed to educate the aching heart people . You can't and hopefully we have clear thinking people in parlaiment who base their decisions on fact and science not votes . Thats why I'm a member. The OFAH knows how to talk to the Government. 81,000 members right now do have a strong voice and we don't spend it all euthanising dogs or building a 9 million dollar headquarters.

[Guest bigfish1965]

Wow...excellent read. Well thought out and supported.

If anyone is looking for more info on the hypocrisy of PeTA, look at the site http://www.petakillsanimals.com

[smerchly]

After looking at some of that stuff , the first letter in their name is surely ...".Pathetic " I hope the rest of the world is aware of this groups activities and I hope to see some long jail terms for the leaders .

[PickerelHunter]

Thanks for all the comments guys, I appreciate you taking the time to read the paper...now I just hope the Prof feels the same way . Thanks to those that contributed their information to me as well.

[ROB MCINTOSH]

PickerelHunter: I only have 1 thing to say WTG This is the first time that I have read a report on this subject and not tossed it down because it turned into PETA propoganda. This is verywell put togeather and if you don't get an A+ then we know that your teacher eats veggies.The only thing that I will add is that it should be printed against the Peta comments because I look at it as for every 1 of Peta's comments there should be 4 against and this way any one that reads there comments will atleast have another opinion to go by and just not be swayed by them. And when reports like this come out every hunting club should get an E-mail of it,just to show that hunting is still alive and well and that there are still people out there that do care. And my last comment would be if Peta ever would donate some of there millions to help the effort of keeping animals around in helping with habitat they may not get the rap that they get but instead they build a new building,and it prob distroyed some sort of living animal's turf. Now you need to do one on the fishing side of it Catfish

[PickerelHunter]

If anyone was curious I got a 95% on this paper!!! I was pretty damn excited. Thanks for the help and info I recieved from some of you on here.

[Guest bigfishbass]

hey good for you buddie.... I once got a 95 to... but for some reason it was back words.... damn dislexic teachers......

[jwl]

Great article man...I myself have no problem at all eating something someone just shot..lol..I love eating game and have been out with people on many hunting trips when I lived up north..ironically not as one of the hunters but as a fisherman..lol...lots of good fishin holes at the hunting spots, great to camp way in the middle of nowhere, also handy to have someone with a gun liscence with ya too..lol..cuz you never know what ya might run into that far in the bush...lol..alot of the people I had met on hunting trips..its a means of survival in the winter for..most work in the mines or construction and get layed off alot in the winter..if it wasn't for hunting alot of those guy's famillies wouldn't eat in the winter...and there is some great commoradamy( probably spelled wrong)..lol..amoungst alot of those guys....and it is alot of those hunters who are actually activists as well on animal protection and habit restoration ect..sure there are unethical hunters and fishermen alike..but hey hunting and fishing is a huge part of our cultural heritage in Canada, and I can honestly tell you that any guys I have been part of thier hunting trip with certainly dont just kill a deer for example..just so they can be part of a contest to see who shoots one with the most rack points.., then don't even keep the kill..donate it to somewhere...lol.or a tom turkey with the biggest beard, thats the last thing they are after..they are after food and thats it..and if you have ever had the chance to be there during a big game hunt..like moose for example...if someone does knock one down..I know from experience..lol..the fun is over and the work part begins..was a great experience for me any way to see this first hand..make new freindships..and at the same time see some beautiful parts of Ontario...fish in some water I would never know exsisted..and also become more aware of some of the conservation efforts that hunters also put back into thier sport.

[Dan Andrews]

Right on 95%. Good for you!

[smerchly]

Congrats on the high marks P.H. .......you deserved that 95 on that thesis ! I printed it off and will hang on to it ....and will put a red " 95" on it !

[Dan Andrews]

Hey PH I was talking to a bylaw officer today about no fire zones and Sunday hunting and the discussion between him, the receptionist and myself turned to the need for wildlife management. They had no idea of the situation in Fort erie right now with the over abundance of deer. The Lady asked me about Navy Island and the controlled hunt. After speaking about the subject and recieving a for the info and seeing the looks of satisfaction and "now we get it" I thought about this paper.

I discovered very recently that my club in FE has allot of socializers who don't have a clue about conservation. Are you a good speaker? We are looking for guest speakers for 2007. Interested

[jwl]

unforunately alot of people don't have a clue that good wildlife management often requires the harvest of game and is actually a very good conservation action...they don't tie conservation and hunting together for example...they only see the taking away part..well lots of people know that the Niagara Region has a some what over abundant deer population, and how this can easily result in illness and disease quickly spreading through a large herd..or in some cases habitat change..for example all the destruction of habitat due to that freak storm we had in Fort Erie..this is going to seriously effect wintering grounds as well as feeding grounds for sure this year..force the animals to move around alot more in a search for food..thus resulting in more road kill..I have already seen 2 roadkills this week on the QEW.and around 10 years ago just outside Sault Ste marie there was a huge problem for example with moose at one particual hill near a place that someone I know lived at the time...a bunch of citizens where getting together and asking the town to put. a light on this one hill because that season..17 yes thats right 17 people had been killed as a result of hitting a moose, how healthy is that for a large game herd?..or all the famillies effected as a result? and result in starvation as well..and a weekend population of deer..predation is also going to be large this year too...it seems the coyotes had a good breeding season from this year too..I have heard alot of them around..and moving into more urban areas all the time...it would be alot better for the larger herds of deer to harvest a few of them for sure than it would to let them starve...or spread diseases like TB..alot more animals will die from those caused than as a result of this year's hunting season..and how successful do you think next years offspring are going to do if they are born into herds of sick..weakened or half starved animals..not going to make the following year a good one for them either don't you think?..funny how people have no problem bringing a bucket of fish home for dinner and no conservation concerns are raised for the most part..but shoot an animal and there are people all over you for it...it's all part of our heritage here in Canada..some one some where killed the dinner you had tonight ..people have to be aware that sometimes conservation means wildlife management in the form..of culls...controlled hunts..extra hunt tag allotments in certain areas...as well as in some cases the selected harvest of certain fish...it's all to help ensure a healthier population...and also results in healthier breeding as well.