The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 583 times Debate No: 41655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




First round is for acceptance only.

Con will need to argue how hunting is BAD for wildlife populations.

I will be arguing as Pro, how hunting is GOOD for wildlife populations.


I am excited to be debating you and think I have some good arguments for why it is BAD for sustainability.

Why don't you post your argument first, and we will get started?

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate, we shall begin.

Point 1

Hunting for sport is regulated on the state and federal level to ensure the survival of game species and their habitat.

The money generated by the states from these licenses is matched by federal funds (so long as the state uses its licensing funds 100% for conservation) to pay for habitat conservation, scientific studies to help better understand conservation techniques and fisheries.

Much like how a toll road helps pay for the continuation of the congestion free roadway.

Point 2

Humans are responsible for the extinction or near extinction of most natural predators. Without those predators or human hunters reducing the populations of many game species, their populations would exceed the ability of their habitat to support them. This can lead to many problems for humans and game alike.

Starvation - if there isn't enough food for the herd the whole herd will begin to starve. Undernourished game are more susceptible to disease and more likely to venture into areas densely populated by humans where they can be struck by cars or poisoned by pollution.

Point 3

There is a huge economy surrounding hunting and trapping that pumps money into wild life reserves, awareness and provides jobs.


Though hunting is regulated, it has still led to the extinction of many types of animals. Also, the top predators, in the food chain, need to eat more food to survive. So, without hunting, some will die from lack of food, keeping it in balance.

Also, hunting may help feed us, but it doesn't help feed other animals who need to eat. In fact, if one species gets extinct, the top predators will die off, and another species will rule. So, hunting can cause the biggest unbalance in the ecosystem.

With money, hunting does help some families pay bills, but hunting doesn't pay as much as another job might. Also, most hunters don't stay within the limits, or hunt illegally, making the ecosystem more off balance.
Debate Round No. 2


Over hunting has caused a few species to go extinct, this is true. However, habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction. Humans ARE the top predator in the food chain, and the only predators who are capable of studying and understanding their impact on game populations. Over hunting in the past, and human realizations of over hunting's impact is exactly why hunters were the first people to lobby for wildlife conservation and habitat reserves.

Licensed hunting seasons are designed specifically to balance the population of the game. Other wildlife such as predators are accounted for as well as estimated levels of illegal hunting. We had professionals working hard every day tracking herd sizes and movements. Never before in history have humans paid as close of attention as we currently do to our impact on the balance of ecosystems.

It is actually illegal to hunt wild game for resale. We have laws in place to make it illegal specifically to avoid situations like the great Buffalo kills of the western expansion period. The jobs I was referring to when talking about the economy were game wardens, equipment sales & manufacturing, land leasing, travel, tourism and education.

Hunting has evolved along side humans to become a long standing tradition and part of the human experience. The economic side of hunting has evolved like every interest specific economy. We even have American hunters pumping money into saving the wildlife of Africa, in countries that wouldn't be able to afford to manage their wildlife without our money.

After all, hunters have the most to lose if we don't practice wildlife conservation properly!


Though you say hunting game for resale is illegal, laws only stop the honest people. There are some who will hunt and sell what they kill for profit. Even if it is only a handful, they still exist.

Also, people are watching and monitoring to make sure the balance stays, well, balanced, but there are always unexpected events. A hunter could kill a few too many, and another hunter could as well. Then, it is all off balance again, because it only takes a little bit.

Again, for the laws about certain game that can be hunted and other hunting laws, they only stop the honest people. Others will hunt illegally, sell illegally, and some will get away with it, throwing the ecosystem even more off balance.
Debate Round No. 3


Due to over hunting, 100 years ago the United states had a deer population of only 500,000 approximately. Thanks to our conservation efforts (which were mainly pushed into law by lobbying from hunters) today the deer population in the United States is estimated at 25 million.

Hunters ARE conservation. It was started by hunters, and is maintained by hunters.

There is objective proof that our conservation efforts have been successful, and as technology improves our ability to track populations of various game will only improve.

It is important to note that an overpopulation of ONE species can cause the populations of several species, plant and animal, to suffer.

As far as poaching is concerned, there are much bigger threats to the white tail deer population (white tail are the most poached game in the US) and all of these threats are addressed with money raised by selling hunting licenses.

Our conservation efforts rely heavily on the money raised by legal hunts.

I have enjoyed our debate, and I thank you for your time.


Though there are conservation efforts being made, who's to say they'll keep up in the same pattern? If you look at different parts of history, humans have made bigger changes than they thought they would, because of how things had been going before. Hunting as a sport, could make some people go overboard and change the patterns of these, taking us right back to square one.

Also, raising money for legal hunts, will only make people want to hunt illegally more. Since they will get lots of money for their legal hunts, they can illegally sell their game for double that money to someone who isn't justified under the law. Then other species and plants will be effected and our ecosystem will go off balance. Though in years to come, it may balance back out, anything could happen between those years to eliminate more of these species.

It has been a pleasure debating with you. I will admit, this was a bit of a tough subject, and you gave me a hard challenge, but I used the best arguments I could find. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by zrg4848 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All claims have to be reinforced by sources and for this reason pro clearly wins this section. I was not really taking a stance on Thai issue but pros arguments were very strong and have pulled me off the edge. I feel that con was trying to prove facts without sources and that hurt their credibility. Pro was very gracious and polite and had better grammar.
Vote Placed by ndedo 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't have any sources and seemed to be assuming a lot. The argument made that selling game illegally could render a species extinct today was weak; as Pro pointed out, conservation departments are constantly monitoring levels of game, as well as limits being tailored for estimates of illegal hunting.