Positive Points in Favor of Hunting - Essay Example

Insert due Researched Personal Argument on pro-hunting When individualized efforts input towards achievinga certain goal seem fruitless, an individual may decide to try another strategy to achieve the goal. Similarly, this is the case with a group of people who are identified as urban onlookers. They have endeavored to see that wild animals such as the fox, the antelopes among others receive almost equal compassion such as the one which human beings extend to the tame animals such as the cat and the dog. As a result of failure to intervene for fair treatment of wild animals through the employment of mere individualized interventions, the urban onlookers have decided to go legal. Their argument with regard to this controversial activity of hunting is that a legal solution will ensure that people will no longer rely on hunting for a living. This will have been as a result of it being made impossible to continue hunting under animal protection by legal intervention. Thus, forbidding hunting using legal channels, as is being seen from the point of view of the urban onlookers, is seen to shed light to a brighter future of the wild animals. This is, especially, for those animals which have been hunting targets for the human beings. There exists, also, another perception which is from a slightly different point of view from the previously mentioned one above. This is the one in which the legal intervention is seen as the beginning of a journey towards a complex system of causal activities which will indefinitely continue with the seeking of wild animals’ liberation from the oppression by human being hunters. These activities referred to in this former statement are such those that will probably ensure that the human being activities within the environment affect it in a positive ways. First in the list of these activities according to Harvey is the replacement ways of modern agriculture which are unkind and damaging the environment with better ones (Par. 21). Harvey also suggests the employment of an entirely new form of land management (par. 21). Activities which would also bring harmony between those residing in the town and the rest of the population in the other parts of the country are also part of the causal activities which would unfold once the legal employment of protecting wildlife from human being hunters is established. However, this perspective of resolving the issue between hunters, the hunted and the environment has elicited varied criticism. Being also inclined to the opinion of the critics of Harvey’s argument, I tend not to support the establishment of legal solution that will see hunters being impossible to hunt, whatsoever. Laws banning hunting will neither contribute to the betterment of the environment nor end the conflict between the people living in towns and those living in the rural areas. To begin with, Harvey argues the general point of view that hunting is wrong. Following his argument, Harvey, presents several premises in its support. All of the premises that he provide are mostly inclined to the perception that human beings, through hunting, treat animals as they shouldn’t be. Harvey introduces his premises with the disputation of the rural harmony vision by Roger Scruton. How hunting influences the relationship between the haves and the have-nots, the squire and the farmer as well as the landlord and the tenant (Harvey par. 11). Thus, Harvey critically responds to the role played by hunting, in the present day, in bridging the gap between different people of different socio-economic backgrounds. This is, especially, that the gap between those who come from high socio-economic backgrounds in contrast to those from low-income socio-economic background. Arising from his judgment the context of present times with regard to hunting, Harvey argues that just as hunting had not been justified earlier in closing this gap, it is as well not justified even today(Harvey par. 13). From the look of things from the political environment, Harvey is to a significant extent convinced that hunting has been a major cause of the divisions between the working government and the opposition. The rise of the class war, as Harvey refers to it, has profoundly been contributed to by hunting. Harvey is also rich in diversity of perspectives, as he provides a second point of view in the presentation of his argument as well as its supporting premises. This is more or less the animal’s perspective. Here, Harvey argues that animals have feelings unlike the Descartes point of view of observing animals as lacking feelings (Harvey par 13). Harvey argues that it is understandable that following the Descartes point of view as the reference for the earlier behavior would see human beings treat animals as they pleased. However, it is Harvey’s belief that what Descartes believed about animals is no longer the case in the times that people live in now. The much people have progressed even in the study of animals’ psychology, through the very essential common senses such as sight to observe them, allows them to treat animals otherwise. Based on the facts that human beings just as the deer and the fox are mammals, they have profound similarities in their physiological and bodily processes as well as the mental patterns. To elaborate further on his premises, Harvey presents the example of the agony observed from an animal suffering from an injury such as breaking a leg (par. 9). In addition, Harvey presents the case of an animal caught in a trap to demonstrate the point that animals indeed feel fear and as well as other feelings such as which are associated with the human beings. Another critical premise that Harvey presents in support of his argument is the incapacity of animals to have rights. Based on the restrictions which make it possible for one to have rights, animals lack what it takes in order to be considered eligible to having rights (Harvey par. 8). Nevertheless, just because animals can’t have their own rights does not take away the fact that there are profound similarities in their physiological and bodily processes as well as the mental patterns to human beings. Thus, despite not having their rights, animals will normally feel anxiety, pain, grief, pain, distress among other emotions. Yet, human beings are reluctant to be empathetic with the animals just as they are with their own kind when they go through various emotional periods. For instance, Harvey observes, one would feel the fear and the pain of a child being chased by a pack of dogs. Yet, on the contrary, if one would observe a fox or any other animal in a similar situation, this time being chased by people, few would acre to imagine themselves in the shoes of the animal being chased. Harvey ultimately sees the employment of a law that bans hunting as the ultimate solution. However, when a law is suggested in such a case, those who will be affected by the law directly protest against it. This has been observed when laws have tried to be passed yet they affect the livelihood of the people affected by the laws to a profound extent. For instance, in this case of passing a law that will make hunting impossible, this means destroying the communities whose social identity as well as economic activities are closely associated with hunting. Therefore, it would be a major invasion breaking their hunting habits or even further confiscating their territory. However, according to Harvey arguing from this point of view by the people affected is not convincing enough to dissuade the continuation of the pursuit for the animals’ protection from the human being hunters. This follows the argument that, in order to pass a law, curtailing of someone’s freedom is a must (Harvey par. 11). Otherwise, governing people is made of essence due to the presence of the curtailed people’s freedoms. Moreover, laws are also passed in order to serve the greater good. Therefore, the minority who might protest would do so because they are the few gainers in the hunting activities while the majority is not, yet being negatively affected. Hunting communities play a very important role in the maintenance of a good environment. First is the role of hunters in the ensuring of the sustainability of populations of game species of the wildlife from one generation to another (Gibbons par. 5). Hunters ensure that the natural habitats of the wild animals are kept intact, free from pollution and any external disturbances. This has a profoundly important essence in the sustainability of populations of game species of the wildlife from one generation to another. In addition hunters pay taxes which are utilized in the environmental conservation initiatives. For instances, as Gibbons observes, this revenue raised from the hunters is utilized especially by either the federal of the States government for the purposes of enhancing the environments of the wildlife. Therefore, conducting surveys as well as researches regarding the environment or the wildlife is greatly funded by the revenue raised to the hunters’ taxes. These taxes are also utilized to enhance the wildlife habitat and cater for the wildlife refuges. Maintaining and managing parks is also the contribution of the revenue raised from the taxes collected from the hunters. This notwithstanding, the taxes collected from hunters are as well utilized in the conducting of surveys and research in the pursuit for determining the status of nongame species too (Gibbon par. 6). Hunters are always in the pursuit for seeking undamaged environments which are also clean and natural as they can be. Therefore, this explains why hunters are not malicious to the environments that they diligently seek for. On the contrary, instead of degrading the environments, the hunters seek to maintain them at their best (Gibbons par. 7). As they seek to maintain good environments, ecologists benefit from these well-maintained environments for research (Gibbons par. 7). Hunting plays an integral role in the conservation of the environment. If banning of hunting was implemented years back, there could already have been species of animals which could have already been extinct by now. For instance, it has been reported that by the year 1907, only forty one thousand elk were remaining in North America. But hunters endeavored to restore and conserve the habitat, efforts which saw the number of elk grow to more than one million today ("25 Reasons Why Hunting Is Conservation" par. 1). Also an initiative by the hunters to save animal species was the ducks which were nearing extinction in the year 1900 (Ibid par. 4). Through the unending efforts of hunters to restore and conserve wetlands, the number of ducks today is more than seven million. The above two cases among many other not mentioned in this paper indicate the important role hunters play in the conservation of environment as well as the implications of their activities. Research indicates that hunting solely supports six hundred and eighty thousand jobs (Ibid par. 15). Therefore, its contribution to the betterment of economy through expansion is substantial. Hunting has also been observed to contribute significantly in the improvement of road safety (Ibid par. 19). This in turn saves lives as well as money which could have been spent in hospitals for treatment. In conclusion, legal action prohibiting hunting will not bring as much benefit to the people, the environment and the wildlife as continued hunting will. Hunters are environment enthusiasts and will employ substantial efforts in its conservation and restoration where need be. As they have prevented the extinction of various species, they will still continue with the prevention as long as they are allowed to continue doing what they do the best. Their activities which are both environmental and economic friendly will see peaceful generations in the days of the future. In addition, the politics involve division of people living in towns and those living in the rural areas can be disregarded and people should determine their constructive choices with regard to harmonious living. Works Cited "25 Reasons Why Hunting Is Conservation." Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation > Home. N.p., Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. . Gibbons, Whit. "WHY IS HUNTING GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?" Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. N.p., 17 Nov. 2003. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. . Harvey, Graham. "Hunting Animals is Wrong." OpenDemocracy. N.p., 13 Dec. 2002. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. . Read More