Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative effects of hunting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negative effects of hunting
wolf killing
a Persuasive Thesis Statement on wolf killing:
Even though wolves kill livestock and do massive damage, killing wolfs can increase cattle deaths and traps and guns are huge advantage over them.
Wolfs can do massive damage to livestock. The huckleberry back alone killed or wounded 33 sheep located near Stevens County ranch. a wild life agent killed 7 members of the pack and the alpha female. In Montana there are having two packs hunt down and kill live stuck DNR has ordered that one of the pacts to be wiped out completely and another back to be cut down a 3rd by killing 5 wolfs out of the 15.
Killing wolfs can help short term but long term make the problems worse. Researchers from washington university are conducting study
on seeing how wolf populations affects livestock deaths. The study says that killing the alpha male and female would make the pack split up their for increasing the population size leading more to hunt livestock as wolf killing increases it breaks them up into smaller groups that are able to breed more and have more offspring. The most important reason, is that guns and traps give hunters a major advantage over the wolves. Traps can break bones and cut muscle tissue making it impossible for them to run and get away. Traps and snares are the number one leading death ⅔ of wolf's deaths are by traps, and snares while ⅓ is by other causes(theberge). Guns are just as unfair a hunter could be many feet away in a tree where a wolf could not even see them giving them a range boast, and by surprise. In the end i don't think it is fair or ethical to kill wolfs there is a huge advantage between us and them if there is not more support from the government and from the public these species could easy go away like the many other animals by are hands.
After reading "scared to death" and "wolf family values" I think the second article gave better reasoning behind why we should protect the wolf population. Both articles talk of the wolves return to Yellowstone national park, but the first essay "scared to death" by Ed Yong focuses on the wolves effect on the elk population. The second essay "wolf family values" by Sharon Levy focuses mainly on the wolves and their population and changes of their behavior because of hunting and trying to manage the population. it also focuses on the effects they have on the environment in general.
The human mind is very powerful, whether were trying to figure out what we don’t know, or trying to persuade others to fear the same as we do. With this fear mankind is set on a path of destruction. To conquer their fears humans often act out by violence. This violent outbreak doesn’t solve the problem but instead makes it worse. Wolves are examples of the ways humans handle their fears. Humans don’t understand the behaviors of wolves and that makes them believe that they are bad and should be feared. Mowats time researching the wolves has led him to believe that it isn’t the wolves who are the ones to blame, but the humans who were the cause of the main problem; the decrease in caribou. Mankind needs to realize that fear is a natural thing that occurs in everything, and we shouldn’t let our fears drive us to make bad decisions that we might regret later.
...I think that repopulating wolves in an area where they might have to deal with people is kind of a feeble-witted idea. Wolves are not an animal with a great reputation, even though they might not deserve that reputation most people do not like. I think that people as a whole would probably rather have deer in their back yard rather than wolves. Therefore, the questions what can happen, what should happen, and what will happen, with the deer problem all three have different answers. These answers will differ due to the area that the deer are in and the peoples' feeling towards these deer. It is too bad that there is not one perfect solution to the deer problem. Maybe in the future there will be, but until then we will have to deal with each problem that comes up individually.
The wolves’ were hunted in late 1800 s’ and early 1900‘s in the United States because farmers wanted more land for their cattle’s to graze upon. As farmers were moving out west they felt threaten that the wolves would hunt their cattles so the farmers thought that the best solution would be to take them out of the picture. This was possible because at the time there were no government regulations on hunting....
When the reintroduction of wolves began in the state of Wisconsin, a goal of 350 wolves was set, and this number was reached successfully in a short amount of time. Once this was reached, however, the population continued to rise dramatically and exponentially, and is now in the upper 600s (Allen). The problems now come down to a few simple questions that have complex answers. Will a regulated hunt get out of control, and a repeat of the past begins? Are the wolves posing any sort of threat in the present? Who or what would a hunt benefit? First, the issue of the past must be addressed. Back in the earlier years of the United States, wolves roamed free, and when farmers moved their livestock into what was then the wolves' territo...
The history behind the extirpation of the grey wolf in the United States dates back to the very first European settlers that colonized eastern North America in the late 16th century. The killing of gray wolves was done primarily out of fear in an attempt to protect livestock, and, in some cases, to protect human life within the colonies. As more settlers expanded West, the practice of killing wolves was considerably increased to protect livestock that included cows, pigs, and chickens. As waves of European settlers expanded westward, they began to deplete the deer, moose, and elk populations. The gray wolves food source continual depletion gave rise to wolf populations actively targeting the settler’s livestock, causing great financial loss. The fiscal loss of livestock became such an issue to wealthy ranchers and settlers that they began to offer cash rewards for wolf pelts. This practice gave birth to a lucrative cottage industry of professional hunters and trappers. As the wolves began to move further West, and into Wyoming, they began to diminish the elk and moose population. To respond to this threat, Congress approved funding in 1914, to eliminate the native gray wolves from
Wolves used to thrive in the western United States. There was ample game to hunt and plenty of places to live and wander. Until people moved in, wolves were settled. As European settlement expanded to the west, it began to take its toll on the wolves and their habitat. Clearing of the forests came first, which was then accompanied by significant over-hunting in this area (Noceker). Slowly wolves became concentrated into smaller and smaller areas in the west. Finally, they were assumed to be bothers to the ranchers and farmers and maybe a threat to those people who lived in the area.
By the 1880's the majority of the bison were gone, so the wolves had to change food sources. This meant that they turned their attention to domestic livestock, causing farmers and ranchers to fight back. There were even some states offering bounties for the wolves. Montana had a bounty on wolves that totaled more than $350,000 on 81,000 wolves. Due to the lack of a food source, as well as the bounties being offered, a wolf was no longer safe in the lower 48 states.
...y white fur for fur that cost a lot of money. Some people like to sell their teeth for money or make jewelry. Mostly just for the thrill of it. Also to sell the whole wolf for money or cut off pieces of the wolf like head, ears, paws, and tail as a award for that they killed one. So because of all the stuff that people are doing to kill these wolves are making all them all disappear. There are less ad less. There are not in all 50 states as they use to be, they are reduced down to 7 states and Canada, that is how serious there case is now a day.
They are a parasite; like a flea on a dog, or ringworm on a cat. They attach themselves to a location like other parasites attach to a host animal, roaming free to do damage as they please. Wild hogs are a nuisance animal that have quickly become overpopulated and under hunted. Many animal rights activist want to end or strictly regulate the hunting of these destructive creatures; however, these animals were not meant to wander wild the way that they do, once domesticated animals released for sport have quickly adapted to their environment and become the beasts they are today. Many states already allow hunters to go out all year long and hunt for the feral swine; however, in Arkansas, the current hunting law is that a hunter can take a wild hog while legally hunting another animal. Hunters should be able to go out and hunt for wild hogs, not be limited to killing them as they cross their paths or if they are spotted on their land. The only stipulations that should be placed on hog hunting are that the hunter must have knowledge of hunter’s education and a valid state
The pro for the reintroduction is the ecosystem is healthier. With the reintroduction, the wolf hunts sick deer and elk. The weak are sorted out and the strong survive. The same goes for the wolves. The wolves that are injured or have diseased cannot survive. When they die scavengers get to eat their meat, which contributes to the ecosystem.
Critical Analysis Essay on The Violent Bear It Away Thesis Statement: Flannery O’Connor was an extraordinary writer, but despite the fact that she only lived to be thirty-nine because of lupus. It did not stop her from writing The Violent Bear It Away which has a religious approach on explaining two different worldviews. Within the novel O’Connor dives into a confused boy’s head and his battle between choosing Christianity and a more American, secular, and science based lifestyle. Throughout the Novel it is to believe that Christianity has been tamed by America.
Years ago, killing animals for food was part of the average man’s everyday life. While, now a days, hunting is questioned by many across the world because it is commonly viewed as a recreational activity. Many residents have a problem with the dangers that come with hunting. Not to mention, as time goes on, society seems to feel differently about animals and how they should be treated. One of the biggest debates is the harvest of white tailed deer. All over the United States, white tailed deer thrive because of the few predators that feast upon them and the large forests and habitats that these deer can flourish in. However, as buildings and subdivisions pop up left and right decreasing the white tailed deer natural habitat, the debate grows stronger. The heart of the debate is centered around ethical issues, human and deer conflicts, safety, and the benefits hunting has on the economy.
...rs livestock. The government put out a program so farmers could kill wolves that they saw attacking their livestock, or if they felt that their own lives were threatened. 18 months after this program was out only ten wolves were killed. which proved that there would be no abusing the law or pushing the wolves to extinction. (Meersman)
In 1996 the government brought back the wolf and there was a lot of controversy about the subject. Since people feared the wolf; they thought that there would be more wolf attacks, and livestock lost. The truth is: a person is more likely to get attacked by a buffalo or an elk than a wolf. Their food supply was plentiful at the time of reintroduction so attacks were never a problem.