Compared to now and 50 years ago, especially after the environmental movements of the ’70s, hunting has become less and less appropriate and ethical. Opinions for and against this are numerous and I could easily share my own, but I’d rather like to avoid opinion and ask the question: Will hunting as a sport still be around in 100 years? Hunting as a means of survival will always exist, unless for some reason we totally wipe away all wildlife and have to resort to farming absolutely everything. That is unlikely to happen, but I would go as far to say that even within the next 20 years hunting as sport may be completely illegal in many areas.
It’s easy to see why environmentalists and zoologists are calling hunting unethical, especially as we see such things as rhino poachers and various extinctions. Even in medieval times there were hunting regulations. Forgetting the king’s wardens and verderers, even lords with their own private land would hire woodwards to make sure strangers weren’t killing the dear and boar in their forests. We can notice how these regulations slacken in areas where authority has trouble reaching out its hand, like in North America when invaders were going mad over beaver and bison for the fur trade. We can argue that hunting regulations may have been a good thing in this case. Today many rednecks and hillbillies across America would laugh in the face of banning hunting as an idea let alone a practice. They, too, have their reasons which make sense. They hold the conservative assertion that all the land has to offer belongs to man and his exploits to benefit from.
As the majority of young people in universities are leaning leftward (can we really blame them for doing so?), partly through the ranting of their teachers and partly through the empirical view of the world’s affairs, we can use our imagination to see where things might lead as these young people grow old and take positions of power in our regulation-setting offices. If sport hunting continues at the rate it does now, more extinction warnings may come about in the future than if by chance we tightened the belt of regulation. Often the case is that some animals need to be hunted to save the lives of other animals and crops. Sometimes dear populations can rise too high in areas, which leads to many consequences, but ultimately these dear populations aren’t rising because we’re not hunting enough but because we’re hunting too many wild cats which hunt dear naturally. So in a way hunting as a solution to over population is extremely paradoxical.
I would not be surprised if even fishing as a sport or hobby becomes illegal in the near future. It’ll be a hard fact for many forest-dwellers to accept, but then again so is the fact that our precious lakes are needing man-set spawns in order to keep them populated with fish in the first place. If I wanted to set my opinion into this discussion I would go on for hours about why hunting as a sport should’ve been made illegal a long time ago. The only legitimate excuse people who like to hunt other than “it’s fun” have to save their precious hobby is the rise of dear populations. But there are better solutions to handling the consequences of too many dear than by killing them. Even the medieval people had a solution for this–the “dear leap.”
With that said though I find sport hunting very fun, and since it isn’t illegal you can catch me hunting in the woods now and then. But don’t be surprised when you see laws going through office asking if hunting should be banned in the near future. There are more reasons why it should be banned than reasons why it shouldn’t be.
Now I’d like to hear what your opinion is, just out of curiosity. If you have something to say about this, please leave a comment or contact us today.
Thanks for reading! We’re here to keep the forests healthy, whatever it takes!