Argumentative Essay-Oh, Shoot !

Oh, Shoot! As stated by Margaret Van de Pitte, “Hunting and gun ownership continue to be associated with liberty, a very fundamental right indeed” (263). The exercise of deliberate stalking, observing, and killing of animals is a cherished pastime that positively impacts our world today. The base of traditional and cultural practices, hunting wild animals should remain legal due to the environmental and economic benefits. First, because of how commendably hunting directly and indirectly strengthens economies of all sizes, banning a vital source of income would cripple many cities, communities, and businesses worldwide. According to the state game officials of Montana, exactly “15,603 hunters bought wolf tags, including 89 nonresidents
who paid $350 for the privilege (a resident tag was only $19), bringing in a total of over $325,000” (Herring). Montana is a weakly populated state, with just over a million people dispersed throughout an astonishing 174,000 square miles. Rural communities in this area are abundant and thrive off of any income they receive. In addition to this, Donald W. Bruckner exemplifies how hunters “do not only purchase firearms and ammunition, they also outfit themselves with specialized apparel, camping equipment, decoys, boats, binoculars, meat processing equipment, books and magazines devoted to hunting, and so on” (316-317). The accumulation of hunting profits in America allows for large companies to grow, expanding to more locations which would, in turn, provide relief for our national debt by higher percentages of tax income for the government. Furthermore, when briefing the topic of positive economic influences, author Margaret Van de Pitte explicates how “hunters make a direct financial contribution to local economies”, and how this “is considerable in places like Alberta, where nonresident big game hunters pay high fees and must have guides to hunt” (257). Similar to the instance in Montana, Alberta is also a large area with an unproportioned amount of residents, requiring greater quantities of income to be able to sustain businesses in the area. The difference, though, would be a focus on guided hunting as a revenue source, where hunters are flown in from around the world and given the opportunity to stalk and kill exotic animals that Alberta has to offer, paying a small fortune for the experience. In addition, author Mellville Saayman emphasizes how “nature based tourism is widely considered as a growth sector that can contribute substantially to the economy of its host country,” insisting that the Northern Cape Province of Africa benefits greatly from tourist hunters and fisherman (120). In closing, our local as well as national economy is more dependent on hunting revenue than most think, and the adverse impacts of prohibiting hunting rights could be far more severe than anticipated. Additionally, most food in society today comes from the supermarket, therefore not much thought goes into what exactly enters the body.
The hunting of wild animals is not only a more humane way of killing a living organism, but it is also healthier for the consumer as well. In his article “Considerations on the Morality of Meat Consumption: Hunted-Game versus Farm-Raised Animals”, author Donald W. Bruckner describes the slaughterhouse as “live cattle being shackled and hoisted while fully conscious after the ‘knocker’ failed to deliver an accurate blow to the head with his captive bolt stunning device”, and how the cattle “kick and thrash, causing severe injury to the ‘sticker’, the worker responsible for severing the animal’s carotid artery once it is stunned and hoisted” (319). Moreover, substituting meat sources from farm-raised animals to wild game one personally kills will allow for a deeper respect for the animal, as well as eliminating the danger of wounding and angering the animal that could be dangerous to whoever is in its presence. In this same article, Bruckner clarifies how there is “scientific evidence that animals unable to engage in some natural behaviors suffer stress, as indicated by increased levels of stress hormones” (314). Because the animal is being required to act unnaturally in confinement, it is putting heavy amounts of stress on this animal throughout the course of its life, depleting the quality of the meat for whoever is consuming it, proving
that wild game is far healthier than farm-raised animals. To conclude, primitively gathering meat sources through the practice of hunting allows for minimal suffering of the animal when killed, as well as being able to keep workers out of harm’s way when animals are being forced into inhumane circumstances on farms or in factories. Likewise, the U.S. government should allow citizens the right to hunt animals due to the positive effects generated when game management is practiced. According to Hal Herring, when an elk herd in Montana was depleting, biologists turned to local hunters in the area to help with the issue by thinning out the wolf population, the elk’s main predator. Doug Smith, chief wolf biologist of Montana, states that he “respectfully disagree[s] with those people who feel that the long-term survival of the wolf is enhanced by protecting them from hunting,” complementing the work done by the local wolf hunters. Furthermore, the invasive and reckless behaviors of wild pigs around the world are escalating with their ever-growing population, causing the demand for wild pig hunting to increase drastically. In addition, detailing their negative effects, author Meredith L. McClure clarifies how “wild pigs have been linked to extensive and costly agricultural damage and present a serious threat to plant and animal communities due to their rooting behavior and omnivorous diet”. As a result, allowing hunters to decrease the species numbers gives the environmental landscape time to recover from the rooting the pigs cause, as well as lessening the amount of money farmers have to spend in order to recover their lost crops. Further dangers of overpopulation, as stated by Margaret Van de Pitte include “more animal/auto accidents, grazed crops, goose-fertilized parks, cougars and coyotes with a taste for pets and children” (264). Furthermore, the effect of carnivorous animals diminishing their main food source is simple; desperate measures, turning to the next most convenient meat source, which in some cases would be us. To sum up, the one and only way to prevent the harmful impacts of species overpopulation would be to hunt that particular animal, eliminating serious threats to the environment and society. Lastly, in order to protect vital food sources, past heritages, traditions, and cultural values for future generations, the government should not ban the practice of hunting wild animals. Author Jacqueline Thursby argues, in her article “Hunting and Feasting in Utah and Idaho” that this region is “rugged country; it is no easy task, even today, to make a living there, and wild game continues to serve as a mainstay for some families” (103). Accordingly, most urban families take for granted the accessibility of the supermarket; a convenience that is hardly used in these communities in Utah and Idaho, mostly thriving off of what the earth provides for them. Consequently, banning the right to hunt in this region would be similar to closing down all providers of food in big cities, constricting the flow of essential nourishment to a large number of consumers. Also in her article, Thursby advocates that in these regions “today, men, women and children continue hunting and fishing traditions passed down to them from preceding generations” (102). Forbidding the right to hunt would not only stifle the central source of food in these areas, but it would also extinguish traditional values that have been passed down for hundreds of years. Additionally, according to author Hall Herring, wolf hunters view these animals as “a quarry worthy of respect” as well as “something to be worshipped”. Hunters cherish the animal’s passing and appreciate its importance towards their families and communities. In brief, the act of hunting is passed down through generations and is the root of many cultures, proving to be a vital tool in diversifying our population. Now most anti-hunters have stern viewpoints and most likely, after all the research that has been provided, still resort back to what they believe is environmentally and ethically correct.
Although there are exceptions of hunters not presented in this article, including those who kill animals solely for the “thrill of the hunt”, or just because sport hunting has gained popularity as modern firearms make it more convenient to kill. In her article “Sport Hunting Is an Unnecessary Form of Cruelty to Animals”, Dawn Laney argues that the practice of hunting for sporting purposes defeats the meaning of hunting and causes animals' pain and suffering in the last minutes of their lives. Some would agree with the fact that not every shot that a hunter makes is a kill shot; however, there are always reasons for the bullet to miss the intended target; like an unsighted scope, high winds, and movement of the animal when the shot is fired. Also, keeping farm–raised animals herded into confinement will result in unnecessary brutality; whipping and thrashing the animals for direction, branding the animal, gauging the ears for identification, and trapping them in quarters so tight they can hardly move. Furthermore, author and primatologist Jane Goodall stresses how hunting around the world is “driving species to extinction”. It cannot be denied that exotic animal hunting can lead to low population numbers, however in most cases, this is an act of poaching rather than hunting. A poacher is
someone illegally killing an animal intending to sell parts of the animal for profit, and a hunter is someone deliberately stalking and monitoring game for a trophy or, in most cases, to feed their families. For those intending to bag a large animal, commonly referred to as a “trophy”, the meat usually is not consumed by that particular hunter, rather it is almost always donated to charities of their choice or gifted to close friends and relatives. In all, the hunting population as a whole allows for animals in the wild to be killed in a humane manner, as well as providing meat for the needy through donations. To summarize, banning arguably the most cherished American hobbies would eradicate ancient cultural practices, causing uproar among those who deeply value it today. Also by doing this, the government would be forcing hunters who depend on animals to provide meat for their families to completely modify their lifestyle. In all, the U.S. government should continue to allow citizens the right to hunt wild game due to how much it positively impacts the environment, economy, and upholds cultural practices.