The Instigator
Fletch290
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
jslan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Hunting should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Fletch290
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 78665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Fletch290

Con

Title says it all, in light of the Cecil story, I am curious as to what some of your opinions are so feel free to comment in the comments section if you wish!

Rules:

1. Pro must argue that a total ban should be put on hunting in America, not just trophy hunting.

R1 Acceptance only
R2 and 3 are yours to do with as you wish
You may use R4 to conclude the debate and remind voters of which points you feel you won if you wish to.

Definitions:

Hunting: the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals

Ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something


Both definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Good luck to Pro and I am looking forward to fun clean debate!

Debate Round No. 1
Fletch290

Con

Should hunting be banned? I will start by listing some of the reasons why hunting should not be banned.


C1: Hunting is beneficial for the environment.


I want to start by making a claim that hunters have contributed more to the environment than any other non-hunting organization. Hunters on average hunters raise about 370 million dollars a year through the purchase of hunting permits, equipment and firearms.[3]


”The Pittman-Robertson Act (also known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act) of 1937 charges an 11% tax on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, or archery equipment. Hunters played an important role in getting this law passed, and the money raised goes directly to wildlife conservation and Hunter Education. Hunters provide almost $86 million a year for conservation through this tax—over $2 BILLION since 1937! It is the single biggest source of money collected nationally for wildlife.” [4]


The total amount of money that has come from hunters for conservation is over 6.8 Billion dollars since 1937. (according to a 2010 report)[5]


And this does not include all the money hunters have donated to organizations such as The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or Ducks Unlimited. All for the purpose of researching and improving the health the wildlife. “

Hunters also pay through fees for memberships in organizations such as Pheasants Forever, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, and other conservation groups. The main purpose of these organizations is to conserve wildlife and its habitat, and through these organizations, hunters raise millions of dollars and volunteer thousands of hours to benefit wildlife.[4]”

I ask Pro to find me an anti-hunting organization (such as PETA) that has donated even a fraction of the amount of money to wildlife organizations that hunters have.


The money that is comes from hunters goes to the state wildlife agencies, who in turn spend the millions of dollars per year keeping the animal populations within their state healthy and stable. If a ban on hunting was to be imposed, it would have a crippling impact on the wildlife agencies, who would have to try and find another way to replace the funds that hunters once gladly gave. The state agencies also purchase/have purchased millions of acres of land for wildlife to live, without the threat of these habitats being destroyed. Without hunters to hunt these lands, and without the necessary funds, the state would have no reason to maintain and upkeep all of that land. The end result would be thousand of acres of forest lost forever.



It is because of hunters that some of our nation’s most treasured animals are still around today, The Elk for example, had a terrible nationwide population of 41,000 in the 1900s and the remaining elk were quickly dwindling. But because of the funding supplied by hunters, conservation efforts were put in place to jumpstart the Elk population, which was well over one 1,000,000 just a century later.[1]

The pronghorn antelope which had a total population of over 12,000 is now at over 1.1 million thanks to conservation efforts.[1]

“Also, there is the bison, which was hunted disturbingly close to extinction, but several decades of selective and careful breeding have reestablished this species, which is now largely protected. Through various conservation groups, often funded by monies directly from hunters, often in the form of taxes on weapons and licenses for each hunting season, many of the animals that were headed toward potential extinction were able to be bred in captivity, and then released back into their natural environments.” [1]

These are a few of the many ways in which hunters have benefited the environment. It is undeniable that hunting has been essential in the preservation of our nation’s wildlife and their habitat. So with all the good that hunting has done, I must ask Pro, can you show any way in which “regulated” hunting has caused serious damage to the environment?


C2: Hunters have helped feed millions of people

When most people think of hunting for food, they think the Hunter is hunting for himself. While in the majority of cases this is true, there are many hunters who hunt, simply to give to those who less fortunate.


In 2010 alone, over 11 Million meals were provided by hunters to the unfortunate through charity organizations such as “Hunters feed the hungry” or “share the harvest” and over 2.8 million pounds of fresh venison, and were freely given. This fact alone should destroy the stereotype of “cruel greedy hunters who slaughter poor animals for fun”

“In 2010, 11 million meals were provided to the less fortunate through donations of venison by hunters

. Nearly 2.8 million pounds of game meat made its way to shelters, food banks and church kitchens and onto the plates of those in need.” [6]

Hunting has done more for humanity than PETA or any other animal rights group has ever done, why would you cut the aid hunters are willingly giving to the poor in this country? Hunting has provided millions of families with a little “financial breathing room” my family included. This alone should be reason enough to keep the sport alive. The millions of human mouths fed every year outweighs the fact that animals had to die for it to happen.

Many anti hunting groups say that hunting is no longer necessary, now that anyone can go to the store and buy food. These kind of statements are hypocritical and illogical. One way or another, an animal has to die so that we can live, be it a cow or a deer. So why should my ability to choose where my food comes from be infringed upon? How is cleanly killing a deer barbaric and unnecessary, yet going to the store and buying pork that has been pumped full of steroids and growth hormones okay? Isn’t it a greater cruelty to keep animals in cramped living quarters, living in their own feces. Waiting to go to the slaughterhouse?


Sources:

[1]http://outdoorlife.answers.com...

[2]http://www.fws.gov...

[3] http://homestudy.ihea.com...

[4]https://www.hunter-ed.com...

[5]http://www.ammoland.com...

[6]http://www.nssf.org...

jslan

Pro

jslan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jslan

Pro

jslan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jslan

Pro

jslan forfeited this round.
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 Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Fletch290jslanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Fletch290jslanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.