2-Minute Debate: Do Hunters Conserve Wildlife?
2-Minute Debate: Do Hunters Conserve Wildlife?
This debate short is part of a series co-produced by Intelligence Squared U.S. and Newsy.
Whether in America’s state game lands or the African bush, hunting has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the media and online. Internationally, the killing of Cecil the lion triggered a firestorm of criticism over trophy hunting rules and regulations. Central to the debate here in the U.S. is the white-tailed deer. Its overpopulation has caused millions of dollars in property damage, over browsing in forests, and the spread of Lyme disease. Many believe that regulated hunting can be an effective way to manage healthy populations of deer and other wildlife. And with the funds raised from legal hunting—the purchase of permits in Africa, licenses and taxes here in the U.S.—hunters have contributed significantly to conservation efforts on both public and private lands. But hunting’s critics question whether big game revenues really benefit local communities and whether hunting could ever be a humane way to maintain equilibrium and habitats. Is hunting wrong? Or are hunters conservationists?
Watch the full debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TkRcB23c0
Follow Newsy: http://www.twitter.com/newsyvideos
Pittman Robertson Act, look it up. Hunters are charged an 11% tax on hunting items which contribute majorly to conservation in states. The countries largest wetland restoration project in history was done in Southern Indiana with, you guessed it, money from hunters. Specifically from migratory bird stamps and hunting licenses. Every National Wildlife Refuge in the country is paid for by hunters. Do you see any game animals in the country that are doing poorly or endangered? Noooooo quite the opposite actually, we have an abundance of White tail deer, turkey, elk, black bear etc. These natural resources are doing great and should be enjoyed by all. Don’t put yourself so readily into an anti hunting stance, listen calmly and respectfully converse with a hunter. They enjoy wild animals and the wild places they live in just as much as you do.
Own your own land then do what ever you want
I’ve always wondered what is going on in a hunters head that gives them the thrill of taking another life. I feel like hunting now is less personal than it should be. What I mean is if you’re going to take a life you shouldn’t do it in a detached manner like shooting it from long ranges in a blind, with war paint on. You should have to be up close and experience the actual consequence of pulling that trigger. I just don’t understand. And the backward logic of "we care the most for animals, that’s why we hunt them," makes no sense whatsoever. I could be wrong, but in my mind, they use this "compassion for animals" bit as a self-serving excuse. Sure they might care for the animals and want them to thrive, but they only want that so as to allow them to continue on with their Lord of The Flies, inhumane, detached hobby. "Well, hunting brings money in… " and? so does donating. If those people really cared as much as they claim – and for the right reasons- they wouldn’t have any problem donating money and observing these wild animals alive rather than on their wall. See what I am saying? Like why do they HAVE to get that trophy skull? "Well, hunting helps regulate animal populations." Look how far we have come as a species. We have literally left our own planet. and yet you all think the best way to manage and preserve animals is killing them? Fuck that. I guarantee you if we put even a fraction of the resources we put into hunting towards scientific research as to how we could humanly control wildlife we could easily come up with a solution. "Well, Its always been done this way," so while we progress in ideas and attitudes in every other aspect of life we should stick to the old ways just because?
Hunters do an insignificant amount of damage to the planet when compared to the animal agriculture industry. The people that do the greatest damage to the planet are the people that purchase animal products made by factory farms.
we wrecked nature hundreds of years ago. its up to us to manage it now. not all animals age or breed at the same rate in nature. if we just suddenly stopped hunting there would be major imbalance in natural populations and could actually lead to much worse conservation for many species.
Great presentation of the debate. I really liked the animations and visuals!
Excise taxes on hunting gear, guns, boat fuel and the sale of hunting and fishing tags/licenses/stamps fund 60-80% of each of the 50 states’ state Game and Fish management agencies, habitat, and conservation efforts. It also pays the salaries of many thousands of staff, biologists, and game wardens who do the work on behalf of wildlife. No other outdoor recreating group of people contribute to this fund….not hikers, not "green" REI nature lovers, not birders or mountain bikers. the sale of tents and hiking gear is not taxed. Hunting money contributes way more money to the pot than fishing money and without hunters, those deer and bear that "green" nature lovers enjoy seeing on their hikes would be a thing of the past if all that money from sportsmen dried up because no one else is paying for their use of the land.
I think both ethical hunters and non-hunters alike can find common ground on this. Nature is loved and appreciated by both sides. Like it or not, nature needs hunters. Only 5% of Americans are hunters yet they contribute to 60-80% of funding states receive for wildlife conservation. If you get rid of hunters, who else is else is going to fund state-level wildlife conservation? Are casual backpackers beating down they’re legislator’s doors demanding an 11% excise tax at Patagonia or REI?
2:12 Yeah, it’s weird that ecotourism for wolves went up and hunting tags for elk, moose and deer went down….
Google the price of a big game (moose, deer, sheep, elk) tag if you draw a tag in a lottery, by the way, as a non-resident of the state you plan to hunt.
Find another way to make money and when ur finding a cure of cancer u don’t kill a human
If the next debate topic isn’t at least marginally based in reality (Your topics are akin to: "Should mothers care for their young?", "Is terrorism actually a good thing?"?, or "Is bacon a health food?") i am gonna unsubscribe. This pandering-to-morons approach is a disgrace to both intelligence and the art of debate.
Great presentation and visuals! I’m a master’s student studying this topic and for class I have to create a film. I was wondering if I could contact the producer or animator/visual director of this video for some advice on motion graphics!?!?
Yes they do!
Does the right for a rich city reseller take precedence over a local who manages wildlife and industry? Well if you’re a big believer in communism, slavery, poverty, etc. Then sure. But I say no. We don’t need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. No outsider promoting pictures taken of wolves should ever be allowed to change local conservation policies. They will be at war with ranchers and Farmers. Everything they do will cost a fortune and kill business and entrepreneurship.
shove your fallacies back up your asses
you cant conserve what you cant replace, something you have once and then it’s gone forever
THE POPULATION WILL EXCEED K!!!!!
The only reason trophy hunting exist within the concept of conservation is because of the money. Trophy hunting commercializes wildlife, merely itemizing these unique animals. In that sense, it seems there are two very distinct interpretations on what conservation means. In my opinion, hunters use conservation to justify there unethical cultural practices because the fact is there are alternatives to preserving ecosystems that do not include shooting innocent animals for sport. Capitalism shouldn’t be held responsible for conservation.
Hunting is immoral cancer.
Animals need pressure to survive. Their biological reproductive systems kick into overdrive when they are hunted.
Same with humans. When food and water are scarce, lots of biological phenomenon start happening– like reproducing more females to ensure the continuation of the species, as an example.
There is only one truth underpinning the hunting debate. People who feel the need to kill animals are deeply sick and should not own guns. Period.
por que le meten sus anuncios la reconcha de la lora!!!!
On no wolves are increasing their range, how dare they. Just stop hunting except for food that’s it.
Animals do not equal people.
Conservation is capital intense project? How does she figure that out, all we have to do is leave it alone, it’s the exact oppositve capital intense, and it’s the lack of a project. And you know who doesn’t leave them alone? The speaker is deluded. The reason we need hunters to help preserve wildlife is because we need to protect wildlife from hunters. Stop killing other beings.
With a planned and sustainable hunting, you can hunt and photoshot at the same time.
They’ve got a logical fallacy here yet again inherent in their bull crap debate. If you stop hunters and wildlife management from killing wolves, coyotes, big cats, and even just deer and boar you end up with a HUMONGOUS loss in ranching revenue. And a pretty big loss in agriculture as well. Even dear and boar tear up crops.
If you wanna make it all about tourism we’ll lose a fortune in free range ranching and farming potential. Instead of seeing expanding business and efficiency it’s just going to decline.
All I have to say is YES and if you took hunters away the world would fall apart…
There’s no fleash for West Saharan cheetah and lions.
Men are hunters. Once you get that, all antihunting arguments fall apart.
The psycopathic nature of hunters are easily revealed when applying the same logic to humans.
As a shaman who works with nature and has experience in the benefits hunting brings to wildlife, some people will never understand that concept and will always think there is no reason behind it other than to harm nature. some people are very ignorant hen it comes to conservation.
HSUS is proven to be a liar… they fabricate their data and have hoodwinked donors into making them, not only rich but also considered experts in animal husbandry which they most definitely are NOT. Hunting is integral and necessary to conservation in the US and if done in a similar manner, may be the same for the rest of the world.
Hunting is not a sport. In most cases the animal doesn’t stand a chance against modern weaponry, while the hunters’ lives are never even remotely in any danger. How is that a fair competition? Ask Facebook to take over their moral and social responsibility and ban pictures of smiling "trophy" hunters. Thereby, actively removing the public platform these insecure individuals need to justify and glorify their horrendous actions. https://www.change.org/p/facebook-stop-giving-trophy-hunters-a-platform-on-facebook?source_location=minibar