Impacts of hunting Essay

Custom Student Mr. Teacher ENG 1001-04 18 May 2017

Impacts of hunting

In today’s society there are many different opinions about many different topics. There always seems to be the person or group of people who find one person’s great idea terrible for all man-kind. It is one person’s word against another and it almost never ceases to end. One debate that has been brought up in recent history is the laws and boundaries of hunting. Many nature enthusiasts love nothing more than to contribute in a positive manner to the environment by harvesting an animal by themselves. It gives a sense of pride while being rewarded.

Meanwhile it is also one step in controlling a species population. On the other hand, there are the people that would be pleased to see hunting abolished because all they see is the killing of defenseless animals. These stances can be justified in certain instances at all times. The purpose of this is to shed some light on the actual impacts of the hunting industry people may not be aware of. The impacts hunting has on society, the impacts it has on the environment, and the impacts it has on the economy. After close evaluation, speculations on what is right and wrong will hopefully be somewhat more qualified.

Impacting the society of America and the world in general is the hunting and outdoor industry. There has been a lot of involvement by various people as of late in this aspect of activities. In 2006 the United States Fishing and Wildlife service reported that more than 87 million people participated in wildlife-associated recreational activities. (Brasher, 2010) Along with the millions that already stay active, there are many many services and organizations that dedicate themselves to getting more people be involved with hunting and other outdoor interactions.

There is a Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly called Pittman-Robertson Act, which provides aid for wildlife habitat, introducing wildlife, conducting research, and educating hunters passed by congress in 1937 (Brasher, 2010). The progress of these acts and establishments largely impacts the future of the industries of hunting and fishing and all the other outdoor activities. Hunting allows for the passing on of enjoying a healthy American activity, it’s steep in heritage, and you get a sense of stewardship for all things wild. Another organization encouraging the interaction is Ducks Unlimited.

They are more incorporated with the waterfowl aspect of hunting. This organization conducted a nation-wide phone poll and found hunters were three times more likely to be involved in organized wildlife conservation efforts than non-hunters (Brasher, 2010). Not only are there many people that participate in the actual activity of hunting, but the overall support from society is tremendous. In 2006 1. 1 million hunters (residents and non residents) hunted a combined 14 million days that year (Allen & Southwick, 2007). There are gatherings and functions all the time to improve as much as possible.

There are 54,000 outdoor enthusiasts that are united in the Izaak Walton League of America to help with clean waters and improved fishing and hunting (Williams, 2009). So many enthusiasts really do make a substantial influence on the outdoor industry. The USDA Forest Service reports more than 200 million visits to the national forests during 2007 (Williams, 2009). Even though many people are able to hunt whenever and in many locations, there are numerous places in America where there are times when it is not allowed. Today there are 11 states that either prohibit or restrict the hunting on Sundays.

This is a day of none to very strict hunting for the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Virginia (Dunham, 2011). This has been a ban in place for many years. Lifting this ban will have an increase of hunter participation in 22 extra days of various hunting seasons (Dunham, 2011). Though this is a day to restrain from gunfire and the harvest of animals, there are still places in these states that have exceptions. In South Carolina, New Jersey and Maryland, hunting is allowed but only in limited instances on Sundays.

This was very surprising to learn of since most areas have no restrictions or separate sanctions on the topic of hunting on Sundays. Other statistics of societal impact may come as surprising. The United States Fishing and Wildlife service shows that only five percent of Americans consider themselves as hunters today (Davis, 2009). This was a low number in my eyes and it kind of had a disheartening appearance to me. This number represents a decline in this sport that many love and wish to have a prosperous future. The percent of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22% though, in 2000, to 16% in 2007 (Davis, 2009).

That is a promising statistic for those who strive to see the activity life on in the future. Even though there aren’t necessarily people who hunt or interact with it directly, it is nice to know there are many who don’t disapprove. Responsive Management Incorporated found that 78%of Americans today support hunting versus the 73% in 2000 (Davis, 2009). These numbers led me to believe that the sport of hunting is likely to be handed down for many many generations to come. Another promising fact is that more than 13 million Americans age 16 up hunted in 2006 (LaBarbera, 2006).

That vast number of hunters was only a portion of the 26% of Americans that participated in one form of all of the shooting sports (LaBarbera, 2006). Although hunting all starts with the society, it is important to know the impacts it has on the environment. There are a variety of different opinions on the ways that hunting takes its toll on the environment either positively or negatively. It is impossible to say that there isn’t support for either argument as well. Therefore this next portion will shed some light on the details of the various ways hunting can leave its mark on the environment.

First of all, a ban on hunting would create its most severe devastation where animals live closest to man and where large predators don’t live (Sorensen, 2009). This statement clearly demonstrates that a loss of hunting would cause chaos among the human populations as well as the animal kingdom. Though hunting is just sport for most hunters, in the grand scheme of things hunting insures the very survival of wildlife, and its environment, in the modern world. This sport and way of conservation is of dire need to maintain the balance of populations we have in the wild now.

Even though there are animals that are hunted more than others and there are some not hunted at all, all animals get support that is needed. The state fish and game departments are responsible for protecting and aiding all wildlife, not just those few species that may be lawfully hunted. A main concern to the environment and even in some cases the safety of human lives is the population of white tailed deer. It is thought that a healthy white tailed deer herd can be reduced each year by up to 46% with no ill effect on the future of the herd (Williams, 2009).

This is a promising fact to hear for those wishing to have opportunities to harvest more deer per season. In fact, without man as a predator, deer can literally eat themselves into oblivion. There would be no way of setting boundaries and controlling what they eat and where they roam and what places they would have no problem calling home. Hunters rarely take more than 15% of white tailed deer herds the way it is and knowing that it would be safe to the herd’s future to harvest 46% of the total population, no one should be concerned with the existence of white tailed deer (Williams, 2009).

Even the total number of quail is easily upheld. Quail has an animal mortality rate of 75 to 80 percent whether it is hunted or not and the population still maintains a comfortable level (Williams, 2009). Not only are population levels maintained well in America due to hunters, but also in Africa the numbers reflect the same way. Actually, hunters have less of an impact in Africa on the environment than photographic tourists. The tourists require more local amenities an infrastructure, therefore increasing habitat degradation (Deere, 2011).

Also in Africa, with the assistance of hunting tourism the southern white rhinoceros population from 1968 to 1994 increased from 1,800 to over 6,370 (Deere, 2011). That seems to be a fairly significant increase to occur while the species is still being hunted over the substantial growth. With these numbers as a test to see what happened with hunting, Kenya has numbers that show results without hunting. Since the establishment of the hunting ban in Kenya in 1977, there has been an astonishing decline of 40 to 90 percent in nearly all of the animal species (Deere, 2011).

It seems a little ridiculous to think that a ban on hunting has a lot to do with the population’s downward spiral but the numbers in comparison with the several countries that do allow hunting show otherwise. Even though a vast number of people live believing that elephants are endangered, elephants in some areas are actually so heavily populated that the can absolutely devastate a habitat. This may seem hard to believe but it does not take a lot of elephants to fill the comfortable population for one area.

Especially beings that one elephant can destroy up to 1500 trees in one year alone (Sorensen, 2009). That seems like an easy way to lose many habitats in a short time. The resource that the hunter is to the environment proves to be an invaluable one. The environment does not to the only providing in the relationship between it and man. An overabundance of any one species can cause shortage of food and increase the spread of diseases (Williams, 2009). Hunters help regulate and maintain wildlife while not affecting future populations.

Many species of wildlife that are hunted are not only secure today, but even, in a myriad of instances, far more numerous than they were before the turn of the last century. This shows that hunting seems to have had a positive impact on the environment in the history of its purpose of conservation. The facts lead many to believe hunting leaves a positive impact on the environment. This may aid the reasons that hunting is permitted on more than 90% of the roughly 70 million acres of woodlands in America that are managed by the forest products industry (Williams, 2009).

With more hunting and more ground to hunt, populations have risen and maintained healthy amounts in recent history. The current United States deer population is estimated at around 36 million with many being in Midwestern farming states (Williams, 2009). In the year 1900, the total white tailed deer population of North America was estimated at about 500,000 (Williams, 2009). The efforts to get that number to where it is now were tremendous. In 1900 New York counted a white tailed deer population of about 7,000 (Williams, 2009). In the same year Massachusetts counted the total population up to be about 200 (Williams, 2009).

To go from next to nothing left in a species like that to having a slight problem with near overpopulation 100 years later is quite remarkable. There are many other species in the United States that have had to deal with the same circumstances as the deer. Only 50 years ago the total U. S population of pronghorn antelope was about 12,000 (Williams, 2009). That is not a whole lot compared to the vast amounts there are today. Back in 1920, the pronghorn antelope could not be hunted anywhere on the continent due to the lack of the species.

Thankfully careful conservation has restored this creature to a state of maintained and healthy populations. Elk also roam free today after near dangerous low levels many years ago. Elk can now be found in 16 different states (Williams, 2009). This number is a tremendous accomplishment for the elk population after such a scarcity in earlier years. Today there are about 1. 2 million rocky mountain elk; 12 times as many as there were in 1907 (Williams, 2009) Even the population of the magnificent game bird, the wild turkey, has ballooned in recent history. Today there are more than 5.

6 million wild turkeys which can be hunted in 49 states during the spring (Williams, 2009). With such a common creature such as the turkey roaming in a majority of the wooded areas of the United States, it is hard to believe that the National population of wild turkey was 100,000 in 1952 (Williams, 2009). Hunting has a rich history on the way things have changed the environment. Rhode Island passed the first seasonal regulation in 1846 to protect waterfowl from spring shooting (Williams, 2009). This move really opened the door for many other animals that were in serious need of careful conservation.

Without these seasonal limits hunting was a year round event for every animal. In addition to the many positives that come from the seasonal hunting that was established, it was a whole new change when the introduction of bag limits. Bag limits were the amount lf one animal you would legally be able to have in your possession in one day or in one season. Bag limits made their 1st appearance in Iowa in 1878, and by the end of the century 13 states had limited the amount of game that could legally be taken (Williams, 2009).

This progressive step may have been one of the largest and most prominent for those multiple species that were in danger years and years ago. The next step towards saving the environment was issued licenses. Resident hunting licenses were first issued in 1895 by Michigan and North Dakota (Williams, 2009). Not only did this largely impact the populations of many types of animals, but it was an aid to allow the states to continuously being able to provide for the environment and its wildlife. By 1910 revenue from hunters through licenses was being collected in 33 states (Williams, 2009).

It is good to know that there were many people that influenced the redirection of hunting by allowing it to be positive for animal populations as well as an entertaining and rewarding sport for many people. The conservation habit set by hunters and outdoorsmen was established over 100 years ago. It became not only about killing your game whenever for whatever, but for allowing populations to mature and reproduce. Connecticut played a role in building the foundation in 1677 as they prohibited the export of game across its borders. This advised less non-resident hunting at the time.

In the year 1738, Virginia set a ban on the harvesting of female deer (does) (Williams, 2009). The multiplication process began to come into effect once this ban was enforced. To make another obstacle to overcome in achieving the harvest of your game was set by New York in 1788 when the state forbade the use of hounds in deer hunting (Williams, 2009). These movements all shaped the way our environment is today. The fact of the matter is that no game bird or animal is endangered by hunting. This is a true statement as long as people are abiding by the laws and guidelines set out for them.

Efforts by hunters have increased wildlife populations that had previously been nearly stripped of existence. There have been many points in history that mad a great and lasting impact on the environment today. It is necessary though to understand what all of this means for the environment. The economic cost is small compared to the big impact a complete ban on hunting would have on the environment (Sorensen, 2009). This may be hard to understand by some groups against the sport, but it cannot be denied as being true.

In fact, In a few years an unchecked population of white-tail deer would cause more suffering than 100 hunting seasons (Sorensen, 2009). It seems to me that this would simply not be worth it. The ensuing damages that would be soon to occur just do not seem like they would be worth it. In many states, expanding deer herds have created traffic hazards and caused extensive crop damage. If that is happening now with the large amounts of hunters actively doing their part to control the population, imagine what the devastation would be like if that effort was lawfully brought to a halt.

Hunting is designed to secure and aggregate welfare of target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both (Davis, 2009). Although hunting is traditionally perceived as being something to do or a way to get out into nature and help, it has much more depth in one area of the non-environmental world. The hunting and outdoors industry have a giant impact on the economy of the United States and countries all over the world. In America, hunting creates sales tax, it creates state income tax, and it creates federal income tax for revenue. The hunting industry generates $2.

4 billion in annual federal income-tax money which could cover paychecks for 100,000 troops. That’s 8 divisions, 143 battalions, 3,300 platoons and some major money left (LaBarbera, 2006). That seems to be a rather large portion of soldiers that would be taken care of from the income-tax of one industry alone. Also, the annual output for hunting and outdoor spending is $25 billion in retail sales and $17 billion in salaries and wages (LaBarbera, 2006). That makes up salaries and jobs for millions of people, and in today’s world a market with a lot of job opportunities is a good market.

Hunting, fishing, and wildlife expenditures generate more than $67 billion in annual economic output (LaBarbera, 2006). Individually, there are some states that are tremendously more involved with the purchasing of hunting and outdoor related items. The top 5 states ranked by annual hunting related sales are: Texas with $1,761,285,042 in retail sales, Pennsylvania with $1,165,059,772, Wisconsin with $960,104,751, New York with $891,031,344, and Alabama with $799,303,993 (LaBarbera, 2006). These states alone combine to provide economic flow with over 5 billion dollars in this type of production every year.

On average, each hunter spends $1,896 per year on hunting, which is 5. 5% of the typical wage earner’s annual income (LaBarbera, 2006). There are so many different things too that go into a hunter’s expenses. For instance, in one year alone hunters have spent as much as $276 million on lodging alone (LaBarbera, 2006). This evaluation of hunting has hopefully educated more people on the issue. Those who choose to voice an opinion in this argument may now be a little more educated on the actuality of the situation.

The facts seem to show that hunting, no matter good or bad, is a very vital part in the lives of many people. The effects that hunting and outdoor activities have on major parts of our daily lives prove to be a huge factor even though it goes unnoticed. There has been a sufficient amount of information here given on the impact that hunting has on society, the impact it has on the environment, and the impact it has on the economy. This is a sport and an industry that will live on no matter what happens, and it will be up to us to make sure it is taken care as well as it has been taken care of for us.

A. Output a) In one year alone hunters spent $276 million on lodging alone (LaBarbera, 2006) b) In recent years the average annual totals have been $5. 3 billion spent on hunting related travel, $6. 4 billion on hunting equipment, and $8. 4 billion on big ticket items (LaBarbera, 2006) c) Hunters spend $605 million on hunting dogs annually (LaBarbera, 2006) B. State outputs 1. Mississippi State University found that wildlife recreation benefits about $2. 8 billion annually (Brasher, 2010) a) In the aspect of Mississippi economy, hunting generates $1.

18 billion, fishing $773 million, and wildlife watching $829 million (Brasher, 2010) b) Mississippi sub categories total at white-tailed deer $860 million, followed by waterfowl hunting at $192 million, and turkey at $90 million (Brasher, 2010) c) Freshwater total income of $727 million while salt water fishing had $46 million for Mississippi (Brasher, 2010) d) Mississippi has 66,000 full and part time jobs created from wildlife recreation (Brasher, 2010) e) Mississippi’s wildlife recreation related jobs pay out more than $1.

15 billion in wages and salaries (Brasher, 2010) 2. Tennessee sportsmen generate $110 million in state and local taxes (McCadams, 2007) a) Tennessee’s 775,000 hunters spent $1. 3 billion a year on hunting and fishing (McCadams, 2007) b) Spending by hunters and anglers directly support 22,500 jobs in Tennessee (McCadams, 2007) c) More people hunt and fish in Tennessee than attend Tennessee Titans football games (775,000 vs. 553,000) (McCadams, 2007) 3. Texas’ total wildlife recreation generation was $8. 16 billion in retail sales, 7.

49 billion by residents and $671 million by non-residents (Allen & Southwick, 2007) a) Total effect in Texas in 2006 was $15. 8 billion (Allen & Southwick, 2007) b) Texas hunters average household income is $66,316 (Allen & Southwick, 2007) 4. Hunting sales in Arizona supports 17,000 jobs, provide residents with $314 million in salary and wages, and generates more than $58 million in state tax revenue (Silberman, 2008) a) Hunters in Arizona add $126. 5 million in retail sales every year (Silberman, 2008) b) In Arizona there are 135,000 hunters annually (Silberman, 2008) Period space space.

Free Impacts of hunting Essay Sample

A+

  • Subject:

  • University/College: University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Date: 18 May 2017

  • Words:

  • Pages:

We will write a custom essay sample on Impacts of hunting

for only $16.38 $13.9/page

your testimonials