|
I've been around hunters all my life. My parents hunt almost religiously, as do most of their friends. Thus, when I was growing up it was hard for me to understand why some people disagreed with it. For several years vegetarianism seemed like a mild form of insanity. I'm not much older now, but I still agree with hunting even though I don't practice it myself.
Getting up before dawn, trekking out into the forest, and sitting in the cold silently waiting for something to walk by never really interested me. I have a short attention span and most of my hunting trips ended when I fell asleep or got bored and went home early. Some hunters stalk animals instead, but that's not too practical for me either since I seem to be incapable of walking without making an incredible amount of noise. A ninja I am not.
Although it's not really my thing, hunting does have its uses. There are now far fewer natural predators in the wild than there used to be. Because of this, animal populations are free to grow until disease or lack of food kicks them back down. This method is generally bad, both for animals and the environment. The local area gets stripped of available food sources and Bambi slowly starves. Disease is also a nasty way to die, since it's very rarely quick or painless. The more animals there are in one place, the faster bacteria and viruses spread.
And so we have hunters. Unless the person holding the gun has very poor aim, the result is a much faster and less agonizing death than either of the two above. As a bonus, someone gets a nice meal. True, as a society the majority of the United States is beyond having to hunt to live, but you can always look at it as saving a cow. On the same train of thought, some people believe that wearing fur is wrong, but at least it's not wasteful.
An alternative to human hunters has been proposed, though. We could try to boost wolf populations and spread them back across America. Most rural outdoor pets would hate this idea, but it is something to consider. Then again, if the whole purpose is to prevent wild animals from suffering unnecessarily, then this doesn't sound like the best way to go about it. Consider this: if you had to pick a death, would you rather be unexpectedly shot or chased down, probably hamstrung, and then messily devoured until you died from either shock or blood loss? My vote goes to the bullet. That way seems like it would involve a lot less screaming on my part.
Hunters are also criticized on a moral level. For example, I've met people who couldn't comprehend why someone would want killing another living thing. Most hunters do, after all, enjoy it. I see this kind of drive as a product of natural selection. The human race wouldn't have survived as long as it has if our ancestors were all pacifists, and meat has always been part of our diet. Those little pointed teeth near the front aren't fashion accessories.
Some people have the desire to hunt, to kill things, and others don't. The level of aggression varies. Is it fundamentally wrong? I don't think so. I personally don't get a big rush from deer or bird hunting, but I'm not bothered by those who do. Maybe I'll find my niche once bear wrestling becomes a serious sport.
Regardless of intent, hunting is good from the environment. Until we develop a way to realistically control breeding and birth rates, it's by far the most humane way to keep animal populations under control. Since a substantial percent of money from the hunting industry goes to governmental wildlife conservation programs anyway, it's helpful both ways. Mother Nature is very grateful.
There are a couple of other topics that link in with this one. I might take a look at gun control or animal testing in the near future, assuming that something bigger doesn't jump out at me. Unfortunately, I won't be getting around to it right now. At the moment I seem to have an intense craving for steak. 
|
