The morality of hunting Essay
The morality of hunting
Do animals have feelings? We may never know for sure, but for those of us who think they do, there are animal rights groups. For those of us who don’t think so, or just don’t care, there’s indifference and there’s hunting. The morality of sport and commercial hunting has been in question for centuries. I could open a economy size can of worms about fox hunting in England, whale hunting in Japan, and tiger hunting in Africa. I think it’s safe to say that most of us are supportive of protecting endangered species, but what about the plentiful fauna of Missouri?
Chock full of birds, fish, deer, and rodents, should they be protected as well? In November of 1997, singer Fiona Apple teamed up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to speak out against Butterball and their “How To Cook A Turkey Hotline”. “Please join me in calling Butterball,” implored Apple, “to tell them there is no proper way to kill and cook these beautiful birds. ” Okay, so maybe you love animals but you’re not a vegetarian. The next question is about the affects of one killed or injured animal on many.
Take deer for example. Many hunters claim that any deer that escapes from a hunt later returns to the herd without suffering any ill effects. Even if they don’t get away, there is no damage done to the population and the hunters have done nothing but their part in keeping populations to a healthy low. Apparently, according to the League Against Cruel Sports, this is entirely untrue. The babies that eventually die of starvation are lost along with their mothers.
They also same that by the end of a long day of running for their life, the deer may have lost so much body heat that they succumb to hypothermia and pneumonia. Another cause of deer fatalities during hunting season is myopathy, which is due to the stress and over-exertion of a long pursuit. The lactic acid builds up, which causes extreme pain, it breaks down muscle tissue. Death finally comes, usually as a result of kidney failure. The organization’s website also lists a “pack of lies”. They are quotes which many have believed to be true but by scientific evidence and statistics, really aren’t.
“Farmers currently tolerate deer on their farms and suffer consequent crop losses because the deer provide them with ? sport’ as a compensation. Without this incentive, farmers would not tolerate deer on their land and would shoot the deer lawfully by day and unlawfully at night. ” The League disproves this by a poll taken in February 1985 which found that 58% of farmers either opposed or had no view on hunting Of course there are may others who would argue this. One of them being “C. M. Dixon” whose website is entitled “The Banning Of Hunting Is An Affront To Freedom”.
Here Dixon states that, “The concept of personal freedom means the ability to choose one’s lifestyle activities and pursue those activities without hindrance from other individuals or the state? While I can quite understand that a number of people find the concept of hunting objectionable, in order for such a ban to have merit in a free and democratic society, the proponents must go one step further and demonstrate why the continued pursuit of hunting is contrary to the public interest or that those members of our society that indulge in hunting are impinging on the freedom of others.
This they cannot do. ” While he is commenting on a proposed ban on fox hunting in England, his views are relevant here. Don’t agree with his opinion? Here’s a fact. Without hunting, wildlife populations will grow to an unhealthy size and the same number of animals that would have been killed during hunting season, if not more, will die slow deaths of disease and starvation. They will invade farmland and cross roads to get there. Although one of these probably affects you indirectly, and the other one affects you as directly as a set of antlers through your windshield.