
Hunting is a predatory act and without it, there would be no reason for a food chain. As we migrate toward a more politically correct society, hunting continues to be demonized by many. It is easy to argue the merits and necessities of hunting while dining on meat purchased from a store and harvested from a slaughterhouse. In this paper, I plan to claim and back how the many aspects of hunting are morally right and considered a biologically sound practice within the bounds of the law, which is crucial in the sustainment of a healthy ecosystem.  A biologically sound practice can be defined as a practice that is either mutual in helping the environment or beneficial to help the environment. I plan to support these points with details concerning the 3 kinds of hunting including therapeutic hunting, sport hunting, and sustenance hunting. Next I will pan out for the reader the 4 different phases of a hunter's approach that include a sustenance hunter, a trophy hunter, a method hunter, and a sportsman. Lastly I will touch on the reasons hunters participate in hunting, the biological impact of hunting, and it's use as a flexible tool for sustainment. A tool for sustainment means that mankind can bend the rules of hunting to benefit the environment in terms of sustainability and make sure the environment is balanced. In the end, I hope to influence the reader to at least understand that hunting is a viable biological tool that when done correctly can greatly impact nature in ways other practices cannot and which has been passed on from generation to generation and should not been seen as evidence of a morally corrupt compass.

Hunting Defined

What is actually defined as hunting? Some people see it as killing wild game like Elephants or Rhinos in Africa like the cheerleader from University of Texas infamous for her picture with various endangered animals from Africa. Others see it as killing seals in the Artic Ocean with harpoons and bringing their carcasses back to their homeland. Hunting to me, and what kind of hunting I am arguing to protect and encourage, is neither of these. What I am arguing to protect is hunting with means to use the animal in a respectful way for which it was intended, what in technical terms would be defined as sustenance hunting. This means that the animal is being harvested to secure means of food for human beings ("Hunting"). It could also be argued that I am defending "therapeutic hunting" as well, meaning hunting for means of welfare for species in an attempt to prevent overpopulation or damage to other species of animals or it's habitat and native foliage ("Hunting"). What I mean to not condone in this particular paper, is sport hunting. This is the main type of hunting that people slander and see immorality with. This particular type is defined as hunting aimed at religious practices and traditions or to secure a trophy ("Hunting").  For me to successfully argue my claim to my readers, it is imperative that in this point of my paper, it is understood very clearly what the difference between these 3 types of hunting are and what each type of hunting entails. The lack of knowledge between these particular types of hunting is where disagreements begin to arise when being discussed. To say you disagree with hunting is to group these 3 terms and their very different meanings together as one. Keep an open mind and see each term for all their differences. 

 Not only are their various types of hunting, but there are various types of hunters as well. Just like a child matures from a baby to a child to a teenager to an adult, a hunter matures as well. They do not necessarily mature in the physical state, but their reasons for hunting and maturity in thinking about hunting as a practice that is both fun to them but also benefits the environment matures. The first type of hunter in their beginner's stage as a young person just now being exposed to the practice is called a sustenance hunter ("Hunter Ed"). This type of hunter is defined as somebody where the satisfaction of the hunt is measured by the ability to kill. They just want to accomplish the feat. Excitement is measured in the harvest and their ability to secure meat for their family as a young person ("Hunter Ed"). Once this hunter has harvested enough animals to deem themselves worthy of providing for their family, they move into the second stage of a hunter's life. The second type of hunter is somebody called a trophy hunter ("Hunter Ed"). This means that they are still out for harvesting meat, but want more size in the animal that they kill ("Hunter Ed"). They dedicate themselves to the pursuit of a nicer animal ("Hunter Ed"). This hunter wants the deer he or she kills to be of worthy size, as size indicates more meat and more of a challenge to track down and hunt. Once the hunter feels he or she has killed enough big bucks they move on to the next stage. The third type of hunter is a method hunter ("Hunter Ed"). This means they challenge themselves to harvest animals with more challenging weapons, like a bow and arrow or a black powder rifle, in return making the hunt harder ("Hunter Ed"). Bow and arrows require fewer yards between the animal and hunter for an accurate kill, while black powder is less accurate as well. The excitement of this phase is measured in the ability to get close enough to an animal to skillfully harvest it at small distances. Once accomplished, the hunter moves into the fourth and last stage. The fourth hunter is called a Sportsman ("Hunter Ed"). There is not enjoyment in the harvest anymore, but rather teaching young and exposing future generations to the importance and knowledge they have learned while maturing themselves ("Hunter Ed"). They advise those around them. This is the final step of a hunter. They no longer kill for personal satisfaction but feel they succeed when counterparts who are in phases under them benefit from their advise. Once the hunter has reached this stage in his hunting career, he or she usually only kills when they need meat in the fridge. 

Morality of Hunting

Some would argue that the middle two phases, trophy hunting and method hunting, are both not morally right. By morally right, these people mean it is not okay for a human to harvest an animal on this earth on purpose or for any purpose. Immorality and hunting is often seen in how hunters kill animals, the idea that it is no longer necessary, and animals were placed on this earth just as humans were and have just as much right to live as humans do. The later two will be discussed in a future paragraph. But to the general idea that hunting is morally wrong I will say that life is all about maturing and learning, and as hunters the understanding of the environment continues to grow and become more prevalent the more stages we progress through. All hunters are required to take a course once they turn 16 in order to be awarded their hunting license. In this course the individual is asked to understand why hunting is necessary and what benefits it brings to the environment as well as how to harvest an animal safely and quickly. Just because an animal is harvested with a gun, does not mean that it was painful or slow. The way hunters harvest an animal is aimed to be as painless and lethal as possible, aiming for the vitals of an animal to allow a quick death. Also, how is harvesting an animal with a firearm any more immoral than letting them be crowded in a factory with no room to move and be injected with hormones? The form of harvesting meat by hunters in the environment is both clean and much more humane to an animal who remains in his natural habitat up until the very point of death. I do not see how one can argue that harvesting animals in a factory is any more humane than hunting, or if these anti-hunters who argue that hunting an animal is wrong have forgotten altogether about the mass meat packing industry.

 Hunters must learn lessons, and time must pass, but the end product is focused on bettering the knowledge of future generations to understand why what hunters do is so important to the environment and why doing what hunters do within the law is even more important. Just as the act of maturing can correct a teenage on the wrong path, it can make a hunter see that trophy hunting is not what is important.  Rather that what is most important is keeping young generations interested in hunting so we do not lose the means to control populations by mankind and that hunting as means of harvesting an animal cleanly and quickly without suffering for food should always be practiced, no exceptions. 

In terms of the second stage of a hunter, while trophy hunting is wrong, it is a step that must be explored by the immature hunter to see why it is not the end of the line and why hunting is such much more than the number of antlers on a deer, rather a practice that could potentially solve large problems the environment is having. Once you see that trophy hunting is no longer the end of line, the hunter will progress to stages that are seen by the public as more moral. None of the stages however are immoral, because they are all harvesting only to maintain population size deemed beneficial for the environment by the Department of Natural Resources. The Department of Natural Resources goes through countless experiments and studies to determine what is good for the environment and what is bad, that is their job. The environment and its wellbeing should be entrusted to them, who can then relay it to the population of hunters statewide. 

In terms of hunting not being necessary for survival in current times, while the individual may cease to acknowledge his importance in the food chain, he or she is very well taking place as the dominant role of the food chain and balancing a population out. When us humans have almost depleted all natural predators of the deer rather than ourselves like wolves and bears, we must then step up to the role of harvesting them otherwise the population just continues to grow. It should also be stated that when trophy hunters kill for number of antlers, the meat is still harvested and used for some form of nourishment and not wasted. If a hunter killed an animal just for the antlers or horns like many African big game hunters do, this can be deemed then as immoral because the rest of the animal is being wasted. Nobody claimed that the Native Americans were inhumane to animals, because they scrapped together every piece of the carcass and used it somehow. While we humans are not quite that resourceful today, we still use all of the meat in some form leaving behind only the nonedible remains. When a hunter ceases to progress to a phase further than trophy hunting, people get that idea that hunters just like to kill to kill. And to that, I will add that there is always a small percentage of the population that pervert the morality that can be seen within hunting and will forever tarnish the name of the sport but this stereotype should not remain for the rest of the hunter population who stick to the belief that an animal should only be harvested if it is going to be used somehow to feed people. 

We may remember this past fall when a dentist from Milwaukee went to Africa and harvested "Cecil" the lion. Cecil was one of the most popular wild animals in the country and served as a public relations tool for Africa. A conservation group stated that "not only from an animal welfare perspective, but also for conservation reasons." ("Zimbabwean officials: American man wanted in killing of Cecil the lion") This animal was harvested by methods contrary to fair chase, which caused a global outcry of frustration and anger. This harvest was not in keeping with the ideas of fair chase and serves as an example of the perversion that sometimes happens. This example is no different than the daily examples of perversion we see in religion, sports and politics. The anti-hunting community will argue that killing Cecil was unethical hence hunting is unethical. This is the same as saying that radical Islam and the terrorist acts associated with this religion are wrong, hence religion is wrong. Pete Rose was banned from the game of baseball for betting on the game as a player. There is no question, this act violates the morality of the game but does this justify that baseball is immoral? Do we consider the Olympic Games immoral because an athlete enhanced his performance with steroids? An individual's decision to pervert an endeavor displays the character of that individual and should not destroy the morality of an endeavor. Just because a person harvests an animal for food does not mean they enjoyed watching it die, mean to harm the animal to the point where it feels pain or suffering, or even mean to run the population down to a dangerous level. "To condemn hunting and hunters as being immoral and unethical and to insist it be stopped is a highly problematic issue. This really is a social issue about hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination." (Lapierre).  Condemning hunting is to be detached in idea of where our food comes from (Lapierre). 

Many people have twisted views as to why hunters hunt. It's often thought that hunters like to watch animals suffer and die regardless of the effects it has, like the dentist from Milwaukee. "I can only say that a hunter is highly motivated to make an accurate, humane kill shot to the vital organs." says Mike Lapierre writing for Hunting magazine. And I can tell you from personal experience the anti-hunters idea of how the animal is harvested is far from the truth.  I was raised where hunting was much more than the harvest. It was about being as inside of nature as one could possibly get and observing that natural world with no cars or big buildings. It was about peace, and quiet, and learning about animals I didn't get to see on a daily basis. When I was young my dad and me would go do target practice every weekend before we went hunting to make sure my gun was as accurate as possible and we would go over where I was supposed to shot to the exact dot. While hunting, if I could not make that exact shot he would tell me I couldn't shoot. What many people cease to see is that hunters want wellbeing for the environment, not just the animal they are harvesting (Peterson). If the environment ceases to thrive, so does the game. I think that any hunters are just environment enthusiasts that love to be outdoors, just like a bird watcher or somebody who likes to kayak (Peterson). They are people that believe our last natural food source should be protected and respected. "To some it seems contradictory; to express respect, reverence, even love for an animal that you pursue, hunt, kill, and eat. It's true that this seeming contradiction is as hard for hunters to explain as it is for non-hunters to understand." (Clark). I am convinced that when born, hunting is a part of our DNA from ancient times when hunting was means for survival. It was described by Ward M. Clark that, "No matter whether humans today hunt directly, or employ middlemen to prepare their prey for them on farms and meat packing plants, the fact of our status as predator is in our very DNA." ("Hunting Is a Natural, Ethical, and Healthy Undertaking"). It is something human society was once dependent upon. If we were to take away all modernization throughout the centuries, we would have to resort back to it. In our earliest days of mankind, we were referred to as "hunter gatherers".  The term is defined as "Humanity's first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90% of human history. Following the invention of agriculture, hunter-gatherers have been displaced and conquered by farming or pastoralist groups in most parts of the world" (Wikipedia). To think of a practice occupying 90% of our races history is huge. How can this practice be cast out of society on such immoral grounds when it was once our only means of obtaining the necessary food for survival? Humans didn't get the choice to not eat back then. All humans hunted or ate meat that was harvested by hunters. Vegetarianism is a modern concept adopted by those convinced harvesting animals is wrong, when society itself was built and evolved from the practices of hunting. Hunting is "a global phenomenon to which nearly every human culture can trace it's roots." (Peterson). The practice of hunting is not a manmade idea or practice, it has been here since Earth began. Secondly, the fact that it is coined as " our most successful adaptation" should speak volumes ("Hunter-gatherer"). Without the ability to hunt, where would mankind be today? Just because it has ceased to take a primary role in our society today due to more convenient forms of harvesting our food, does not make it immoral, rather misunderstood by those who have forgotten its importance in our evolution. Also, hunting is a lot cheaper to some people who cannot afford the grocery store prices and who do not want genetically modified organisms. These are so numerous today, how are we as humans supposed to know where and how our meat is being treated before it is being sold in stores.

I like to think of hunting as a way to rely on ourselves. I find independency to be rather gratifying. And to do so, and get away from distractions I am faced with in the everyday world is important to me. Just as shopping is some people's escape from reality hunting is mine. I tend to lean towards the idea that people who disagree with hunting are simply lacking in facts and knowledge of hunting, as well as lacking in exposure. Many people will argue that hunting is taking away an animal's right to live. And to them, I ask is it wrong for a bear to kill a salmon for a meal? If hunting were wrong, our environment would not be dependent upon it entirely from the beginning of time. If humans cannot kill animals at all, then we are then forced to scavenge for food, because technically factories are also humans just killing animals. Without hunting, there is no food chain, and with no food chain there is no distinction between an insect and a bear and no variation in wildlife. I believe they have become not in touch with our world as it was before mankind made it's giant mark in evolution (Eaton). I am able to if necessary resort back to the practices my ancestors mastered long ago to provide meat. It also gives me an escape from modern society, which I often feel tries to cover up or get rid of much of our past. It reminds us who we are as a human race and where we started from (Peterson). Understanding hunting is to understand our role in society, if we forget that we ever hunted, what species do we become? Lastly, I think it is not to be ignored that a certain sense of camaraderie is often shared with a successful hunt, just as our ancestors as early humans would celebrate a kill ("Hunting Is a Natural, Ethical, and Healthy Undertaking"). Is camaraderie something to be seen as immoral? And is being pleased by one's able to provide for themselves really wrong? I would argue that the breach of morality is not in the hunt itself or even the celebration after, but the method of hunting, which is only sometimes and by very few people immoral. 

A Biological Tool

Moving from morality, hunting is one of nature's most flexible biological tools to maintain or correct environments. The argument around hunting generally focuses around the morality of it, but the public view ceases to acknowledge half of the argument. Hunting is key to many environments' biological success and ability to remain sustainable. Take carrying capacity into account. Carrying capacity is defined as the largest amount of a population that an environment can sustain without negative affects to both the species and surrounding species. When a carrying capacity begins to reach its limit or surpasses its limit, this is when we begin to see problems arise like displacement of species not in accordance with their natural habitat as well as overpopulation that leads to disease spread and starvation. "The impacts of overpopulated deer on plants cascade through whole ecosystems; they've been shown to cause declines in the abundance and diversity of all kinds of forest creatures, from insects to mice to canopy-nesting birds." (Levy). Lets explore environment X that has no development at all from mankind, it has no buildings, no roads, just habitat. Now let's explore developments Z, that have been modernized with big buildings and thousands of roads flowing through them. Let's say that developments Z are cities in the state of South Carolina, such as Sumter, Orangeburg, Kiawah, Charleston, and Columbia that are constantly growing due to urbanization. Whatever the carrying capacity was for environment X you now have to adjust for every single road and house that was thrown up in environments Z. The carrying capacity has now become drastically reduced. This is the biggest problem we are facing in today's society where carrying capacity is drastically being changed due to human interference with natural habitat and deforestation. Hunting is the only biological tool efficient enough and flexible enough to account for the needs of the specific environment that is so rapidly changing. Especially when we are the sole reason that numbers of prey species are increasing, not only because of urbanization, but also because of loss of other natural predators like bears and wolves. 

What many people don't know about carrying capacity is that predation is taken into account when it is being determined. Predation is part of the equation. Biologists assume that not all of a population is going to make it. For instance, only 10 out of 20 deer will survive due to predation, disease, etc. If you take hunting out of the formula for carrying capacity you are drastically increasing population growth, which has already become a problem due to declining numbers of hunters. People often see hunting as a one-way street, to decline numbers of species when they've become too numerous. But many don't know that is also a way to rebound species populations that have declined too much. Let me give you a recent example that just occurred in South Carolina. 

A game limit is how many animals a single person is allowed to harvest during a season of legal hunting in one day. The game limit on turkeys in the state of South Carolina used to be 3, and then the population began to increase too rapidly. The game limit then became 5 to allow more predation and to counter stressing the carrying capacity. Just a couple weeks ago, with the turkey season approaching at the end of March, the limit has now returned back to 3 (SC DNR). Now why might this have occurred? Moing the limit at 5 has allowed for more predation of hunters to cease the growth of the turkey population that was beginning to become unsustainable and too plentiful. Now with the population of turkeys declining more rapidly, returning the limit back to 3 is allowing for population growth once more. Hunting was not the only reason for population decline though. Cold and wet springs put a strain on poults, or young turkey flocks causing a decline. Just because the population has started to decline, does not mean that hunting needs to cease all together, it merely means that hunting needs to be more tightly regulated otherwise you allow the population to start growing exponentially again. 

So many people look at hunting as just taking away from a population. In this turkey example I just presented to you, our limiting to predation is going to allow the population to increase. We serve both sides of the argument. Humans are one of the only predators on this earth that can study population sizes and adjust our number allowed for harvest to reflect what the environment needs or doesn't need. No bear, or wolf, or other predator is capable of this. This is why human predation is so necessary, especially in modern times where we are losing more and more other natural predators what seems to be every decade.  

Another example from the state of South Carolina is limitation on deer. It used to be that in the lower state there was no limitation to deer harvesting because they were so numerous and the upper state had a limitation of 10 bucks per year. Now both recognize the limitation of 5 bucks per years. Now you're probably thinking that the decline of population came from hunters, you would be wrong. The biggest predator to deer during that time of no limitation was Coyotes. The limitation was a direct result of the impact coyotes had on our population. Hunters were able to adapt to this change nobody saw coming and were able to keep population sustainment in check during a period of time where coyotes were overrunning the state. Once again, hunting was used as a tool to both decrease and increase population without totally eradicating the practice. 

Conclusion

In this paper, I have discussed what types of hunting exists, the stages of a hunters life for which he or she progresses, why humans hunt, and hunting as a biological tool for our environment that is the most flexible way to manage our natural resources while addressing popular opinions of anti-hunters. This is merely the surface level to the argument as a whole. There is so much more to this ancient practice than what was mentioned and so much more to learn about its biological impacts that mankind does not yet understand. And while hunting will always continue to be slandered by individuals who are as strong in their belief as I am in mine, I challenge you as a reader of this paper to open up your mind to what hunting does offer to us as humans and to the environment. Listen to both sides of the argument, and do your research before obtaining such strong opinions. It is much more than killing, and has many promises for our environment as well as lessons to teach humans about respecting nature. I hope that this paper has struck your curiosity in some way to be more inclined to dig below the surface level of seemingly one-sided arguments and let the facts dictate your opinion of hunting not public scrutiny.  I leave you with a quote by Henry David Thoreau from his classic work called Walden that reads, "Go fish and hunt far and wide day-by-day farther and wider- and rest thee by many brooks and hearth-sides without misgiving and remember thy Creator." ("Hunting Is a Natural, Ethical, and Healthy Undertaking").

