Hunting has been not only a practice but a way of life for centuries. It was created because of the demand for resources such as food and pelts. It slowly transformed into an entrepreneurship for hunters to sell their resources as a source of income. Modernized hunting has evolved to a sport rather than a necessity. It definitely benefits the hunter but it is not the primary source of their income. Not only does hunting benefit the hunter, it benefits the state, and provide a well balanced ecosystem for wildlife.
Although modern hunters don’t use hunting as their primary source of income, they still benefit greatly from hunting. The minor fee to be able to hunt is little to nothing compared to the money you save from the cost of meat all year long. Some hunters also claim that they Johnny Masopust
gain health related benefits from hunting. Hunting allows a hunter to clear their mind and not have to worry about time or a schedule, or anything else that is weighing on them. Hunters that begin to hunt at young ages typically continue to hunt until old age.
Equally important, the state in which people are hunting in benefits greatly from hunting. One way it helps the state is it makes its people safer by killing deer. Deer caused accidents kill over 200 motorists a year. This costs of around 10 billion dollars every single year. Hunting helps regulate those numbers from escalating even higher. Tens of thousands of deer are killed in accidents, but that number would be a lot higher if 6-7 deer for every highway-killed deer weren’t taken away. (“10 Benefits of Hunting.”) source Not cited yet Not only does the state save money, they also earn some money as well. Every time a hunter wants to hunt an animal they have to buy a tag. This gives money straight to the state.
Finally, in the early 2000s there were around 40,000 elk and only 500,000 deer primarily because those wild game animals were the main source of meat for the average person. (“10 Benefits of Hunting.”) Today there are over a million elk and over 33 million deer, thanks to hunters funding wildlife management programs. Someone that is not educated on the ways hunting regulates wildlife populations would assume that any form of taking animals out of any ecosystem would cause populations to drop even lower. This is not what actually happens. By eliminating some of the deer’s unhealthy population, as well as remove some of its natural predators, it could create a major growth in population.
Although legal hunting has major benefits, on the contrary has been proven in some cases how disastrous it is to overtake a specie or illegally poach them. Cortni Borgerson studied “The Effects of Illegal Hunting and Habitat on Two Sympatric Endangered Primates” in the Masoala peninsula. He studied the methods that hunters are were using in order to kill two different types of native lemurs. Areas where villages were located had 80% less lemur populations than not near villages. Those lemur populations directly corrected with the amount of plants and vegetation in the same habitat. Illegal hunting was stripping the land and removing all life.(Borgerson) Another journalist named Johannes Refisch also studied illegal poaching, but this time on primates in the Taï National Park. “The amount of primate bushmeat extracted from the Taï National Park and surrounding forests was 249,229 kg in 1999, and has not decreased in size for 15 yards.” (Refisch) The biggest way to prevent this from further happening is to promote programs that increase the production of domestic animals as a substitute for all of the wild bush meat. Countries such as Côte d’Ivoire and other African nations have a major problem with Bush hunting practices. Their need for food comes from the lack of any domestic animal production. If Domestic livestock is developed, they can implement hunting laws to regulate their ecosystems. Without any action the illegal hunting will dismantle and eventually kill those African ecosystems. It is very devastating to hunt illegally, but if that hunting is regulated, then it could benefit those species greatly.
Some will argue that hunting is harmful for habitats, or that it is not ethical to hunt animals. It increases stress levels for wildlife and can lead to premature deaths while pregnant, and the tendency to not reproduce as frequent as they should. It pollutes the deep wilderness with human artifacts that can damage the land as well the animals in it. Although these statements sound like compelling arguments, they are simply not true. Some say that hunters are heartless and cruel, but studies by Stewart Wilson show that “Expressive aggression did not correlate with the typical hunting attitude.” the hunters don’t hunt out of anger. On the contrary they have a deep love for the animals. (Wilson) When hunters follow all rules and training they have been given before they are allowed to hunt, all of this is prevented. The only negatively adverse effects from hunting originate from the lack of personal responsible of certain hunters that abuse the system. If this abuse is discovered, their are great consequences in place to stop these such actions. This forces those problems to diminish until they are no more.
Hunting is not only helpful to an environment, it’s it needed in order to continue the wide animal index we have today. Many animals have been brought back from the verge of extinction. Next time someone tries to discredit the benefits of hunting, educate them on how beneficial it really is. Hunting has stopped being a primary source for human food, but it’s practice isn’t going anywhere for a long time. Hunting is a valuable tool in shaping our earth and its inhabitants.
Works Cited
Borgerson, Cortni. “The Effects of Illegal Hunting and Habitat on Two Sympatric Endangered. Primates.” International Journal of Primatology, vol. 36, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 74–93. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10764-015-9812-x.
Refisch, Johannes, and Inza Koné. “Market Hunting in the Taï Region, Côte d’Ivoire and. Implications for Monkey Populations.” International Journal of Primatology, vol. 26, no 3. June 2005, pp. 621–629. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10764-005-4369-8.
Wilson, Stewart, Marc, and Pedan, Emma. “Aggression and Hunting Attitudes.” Society. & Animals, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 3–23. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1163/15686306- 12341341.
“10 Benefits of Hunting.” Edited by Live Outdoors, LiveOutdoors, 30 Dec. 2013, www.liveoutdoors.com/hunting/208517-208517/.
Annotated Bibliography
Borgerson, Cortni. “The Effects of Illegal Hunting and Habitat on Two Sympatric Endangered. Primates.” International Journal of Primatology, vol. 36, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 74–93. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10764-015-9812-x.
Cortni Borgerson discusses the major threats to primates. It states that a primates major issues correlate with the complex relationship of human impact and the ecological processes. They know this but we do not know how these affect individual primate species. That knowledge is needed for overall conservation. He used many sources such as primate surveys, habitat analysis, interviews, and one year of direct observation of hunter behavior and catch. These sources allowed him to compare the impacts on two sympatric lemur species: the two largest sized and most endangered lemurs on the Masoala peninsula of Madagascar, Varecia rubra (the red ruffed lemur; Critically Endangered) and Eulemur albifrons (the white-fronted brown lemur; Endangered). Alteration of habitats affected one species primates more than just trapping, while the other was affected oppositely. Individual conservation efforts for each specie will help the primates far more effectively.
Refisch, Johannes, and Inza Koné. “Market Hunting in the Taï Region, Côte d’Ivoire and. Implications for Monkey Populations.” International Journal of Primatology, vol. 26, no 3. June 2005, pp. 621–629. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10764-005-4369-8.
Johannes Refisch studied the effect of market hunting on primate species in the Taï National Park and adjacent forests in Côte d’Ivoire. Market hunters are people that sell the animals for income. He compared the calculated maximum reproduction rate with the current rate of reproduction. He assessed the average bushmeat consumption per year from weekly investigations in 88 bushmeat restaurants and markets over a 12-mo period in 1999. Demand for larger primate species such red colobus ( Procolobus badius), black- and- white colobus ( Colobus polykomos) and sooty mangabeys ( Cercocebus atys) were the highest. They suggest that wildlife managers create and encourage programs that promote the production of domestic animals as a substitute for wild meat.
Stewart Wilson, Marc, and Emma Peden. “Aggression and Hunting Attitudes.” Society. & Animals, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 3–23. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1163/15686306- 12341341.
Stewart Wilson examined the relationship between aggression and hunting attitudes. He used two different studies. One psychometric test was given to a sample of general population of hunters to assess their hunting attitudes and aggression. Men were typically more aggressive as well as more supporting of hunting than women were. Expressive aggression did not correlate with the typical hunting attitude.
“10 Benefits of Hunting.” Edited by Live Outdoors, LiveOutdoors, 30 Dec. 2013, www.liveoutdoors.com/hunting/208517-208517/.
“10 Benefits of Hunting.” described many benefits of hunters including is ability to help animal populations and how it has formed wildlife reservations in order to protect animals and their habitats. It also showed many of the benefits that non-hunters gain from such as the less chance of a motor vehicle accident involving wild deer.
...(download the rest of the essay above)