A long-studied Alaskan wolf pack may be dead after years of aggressive hunting. Do hunters do more harm than good?

  • I agree that hunters are doing more harm than good in this situation.

    While wolf populations in some areas over the years have increased, the apparent extermination of a wolf pack in Alaska shows how excessive hunting can cause harm and extinction. Do we know what causes increases in wolf populations and is it only because due to shortage of food sources wolves encroach on neighboring towns and homesteads in their habitat? Are the causes man-made and we only have ourselves to blame for increases in wolf populations? We need to take a closer look and see what causes the increase. Is higher human population in the wolf's habitat causing an imbalance in the ecosystem?

  • Yes, some hunters are driven by a blood-lust that means they kill out of pleasure rather than need.

    Hunters generally kill animals for food, to protect themselves and their livestock, and to keep down the numbers of certain species. When killing becomes excessive or is simply a sport, and leads to the extinction of a species or the wiping out of an entire group, this is unforgivable and should not be allowed. If this wolf pack presents a danger, people need to investigate alternative means of control.

  • In general? No.

    Over-hunting is a problem in some areas, but regulated hunting is largely beneficial to the environment.

    First off, I don't support the hunting of certain species, primarily active carnivores, as 1.) their meat is usually wasted and 2.) it's usually more harmful to the environment than helpful unless competing species in the area have been extirpated. If they're going after your livestock, that's an entirely separate thing, but I'm opposed to hunting them simply for sport/trophy. That said, regulated hunting is extremely beneficial for the strength of many populations. When they overpopulate disease spreads much more easily, resources like food and shelter run low, and the strongest individuals don't pass on their genes in as many cases. Additionally, hunters buying licenses, permits, stamps, bows, firearms, muzzleloaders, and ammunition pay for hundreds of millions of dollars in conservation efforts each year in the USA alone.

  • No, Hunters do not do more harm than good although hunting and hunters should be monitored

    In most areas around the world, hunters do not do more harm than good. Hunters help to control natural wildlife populations and also provide more sustainable food as most hunters eat what they hunt. However, in areas where laws and regulations are not in place, it would be easy for aggressive hunting to cause damage to natural wildlife populations instead by upsetting the ecosystem balance. In Alaska, certain areas may need to have greater controls to keep this from happening in the future.

  • No, hunters do not do more harm than good.

    This question is so easy to argue for either side really but in my opinion if I have to answer if there is more harm or more good that comes from hunting, I would have to say good. Is it truly realistic to imagine a world where the entire animal kingdom runs rampant? It is marginally better to allow hunters to enjoy their sport.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.