The argument for hunting.

[Bubba's Dad]

I grew up all over the US, with my dad being in the US Navy, but I grew up with South Dakota values. For those who do not know, hunting and fishing is a big part of the South Dakota economy, and culture. According to 2004 statistics, only about 20 percent of the population hunts, but the state gets a lot of hunters and fishermen from out of state. All of that means that residents and nonresidents made 270 million dollars in expenditures in 2004. The 2001 statistics say that residents and non residents spent 181 million on fishing expenditures, and about 23 percent of South Dakotans fish. South Dakota has a population of about 640,000 people who are 12 or older, (hunting age). An additional 92 million dollars in expenditures come from wild life watching activities, such as Bear Country and Reptile Gardens. I state all this to show that hunting and fishing are a large economic boost to South Dakota.

With so much money changing hands, the people of South Dakota give conservation of wild life top priority. Some have argued that hunting will lead to the extinction of some types of animals, but that is no longer the case. In fact, with the tax dollars available from all of those hunting expenditures, and with so many business depending on hunting, conservation is well funded. It has to be. No one in the state wants a shortage of money producing game. With out hunting, who would pay for all those conservation efforts?

Another argument about hunting is waist. It is such a waist to sport hunt or kill a deer for a trophy. And yes it is. Many out of state or out of country hunters are only interested in the rack when hunting deer, or only interested in the final tally when hunting pheasant. In South Dakota, one in seven people are below poverty level, and ironically, in a state were cows are everywhere, fresh meat is the main nutrient lacking in diets among the poor. At the same time, deer and antelope populations in the state have exceeded goals. South Dakota hunters have responded by buying additional hunting tags and donating over 255,000 pounds of deer meat to needed families. In 2007, 1050 pheasants alone were donated. Waist, in South Dakota, is not an issue. I could not find data on how much walleye is donated to churches every year from sports fishermen, but it must be a bunch.

Hunting helps feed the poor, fund conservation and wildlife research, and provide an incredible amount of money to businesses with in the state.

Most of my figures come from the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks home page.

These are some of my points I use to argue for hunting, and hunting right. Maybe some of you have other opinions or questions. Please, bring it up, lets talk. What do you think? I really would like to get opinions from those of you who live out side the U.S. as your views on many things differ so much from my own.

[dark]

I live in Alberta, and we're a rather "red neck" type province. We have oil, we have cows, we have rodeos, and we have guns and beer. Often times we are called something along the lines of a "sister" province to the U.S.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say a few people in Alberta hunt. And I'm fine with that. When hunting is used to help keep certain populations in check, and to help relieve pressure on the environment, I'm all for it. If you are hunting to get food. Good on ya. I've heard deer meat is nice to eat.

But if you are simply hunting for the hell of it. No. I find that hunting a deer for it's beautiful set of horns, is like killing an elephant to get it's ivory. It's wasteful, a waste of time, energy and gas to drive out to the hunting spot.

I am very against the killing of animals for their looks. A deer's horns will always look better on it's head than on your wall.

[Raivynn]

Apologies for being gone for a bit..RL has had me exhausted and not up to posting much anywhere.

Anyhooooo...on-topicness.

My stance is hunting for food ect is fine. Hunting for sport, for trophies such as tusks, antlers ect..no. It's not something I can ever see myself agreeing with.

Fox hunting is now thankfully banned in this country, but before that I was an avid...albeit peaceful protester to something that I found cruel and wasteful. To this day I firmly stand against blood sports.

[Bubba's Dad]

Two replies and both are about the same, no hunting for trophies. I agree on a personal level, I want it all, horns, hoofs, meet and hide. However, when well managed, is trophy hunting wrong? I mean, in SD, a state that is pretty good and wild life management, we love out of state trophy hunters. Their money fuels our economy, and fund wild life conservation. The meat in most cases dose not go to waste, and with well managed hunting seasons, the wild life population is kept to a healthy number. Now, as I said, I would not trophy hunt, but should it be looked down upon as a rule?

Take Africa for example. If the governments of that continent ever got their act together, would not sport hunting be a great thing? At this time elephant ivory is illegal and with good reason. But if a a wild life conservation program was well managed, then elephant populations could be kept at a healthy level. The big game hunters would pay thousands to legally hunt these critters, the tusks could be legally sold, and the meat could be used to feed the locals. What dose elephant meet taste like anyhow? This positive situation would require a good government program mated with a well organized capitalistic system, so Africa will have to wait a while I guess.

Remember, the American Buffalo was at one time nearly extinct, mainly do to political reasons. Now, we again have herds of them, both wild and kept on buffalo ranches. A small number of buffalo hunting licenses are sold every year, and many restaurants in SD offer buffalo burgers on the menu, which is way different then buffalo wings by the way. A tanned and matted hide (robe) will sell for $2000. It was the economic end of things that has really funded the buffalo come back.

As far as fox hunting goes, I always thought that is was more of a social status thing then anything else. A reason to ride horses and mingle with the elite. Sort of like the Governors Hunt in South Dakota, a hunt where the movers and shakers of the big businesses and political parties get to shoot pheasant with the Man, while the test of us peasants stay out of the way. Not my thing, but I never thought much about it. I do wonder though, when the fox population grows, will the powers that be allow open hunting, as opposed to the organized horse and hound hunts? Just a thought. Not knowing your area, I have no idea if there is a large or small fox population. I do think open hunting would be far less cruel and less socially dividing then the old way of chasing down a single animal with hounds and horses.

[Raivynn]

I'm a bit unclear as to the legalities. But I think that if a fox comes onto your land and tries to take your livestock you can legally kill it (which I have no issue with). It's just the organised hunts with hundreds of dogs and men on horseback chasing and terrorising one solitary animal. I feel it should remain as such.