Personal tools

Argument: Proceeds of hunting industry go to wildlife sustainability

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

William Ramsdell. "In Defense of Hunting: Cruella DeVille or Captain Planet?". 18 Apr. 2008 - The old statement, “Yeah, but you’re killing the animals you claim to protect” is worn out and uninformed. Any hunting operation allows only a small number of animals to be taken annually, the proceeds of which protect both that species and all other species on the property, hunted or not. During this process, biological data is recorded and submitted to Wildlife Services in order to keep close tabs on the overall health and population of the species. Since so much of the fertile husbandry land, especially in America, has been converted into land for cattle and people, natural predators like coyotes and the endangered wolf have been exterminated to an alarming extent. As a result, species like deer that still exist outside of wreaking stockyards and concrete jungles have no predators. Without predators, such species would reproduce to the point of population-food curve destabilization — but for the attention of hunters and the data they provide Wildlife Services. It is in ignorance of the basics of biology that some people hold fast to the possibility of a species that has no natural or unnatural predators and is left to its own devices. The only result is a population that repeatedly over-consumes the food base to the point of sickening die off and so fourth. So, no, we (hunters) cannot just “leave Bambi alone” because we (humanity) have violently disrupted his ecosystem and now we (hunters) are the ones holding it together.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits