Internet Netiquette is core values that must be observed by internet users in order to ensure that respect is enhanced among everyone. This involves respecting one’s privacy and ensuring that everyone makes use of polite language which does not harm others (Belani 115).
Internet netiquette should be observed to protect users from sites that can be harmful to their computers.
Flaming
An example of flaming is flame war which was considered from a roadmap carried out by Patrick Crispen in his daily workshop in internet.
This is where people use abusive language against others. In the road map various clear evidence of use of abusive words could be shown (“ROADMAP: FLAME WAR” par. 2).
Spamming
An example of spam message is- IT TRAINING TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLLEGE FACULTY, STUDENTS AND STAFF.
This is a message attached to people’s mails without their consent. It carries misleading information which may lead people to making wrong decisions.
This happened where people received this article in their email addresses. This might have mislead many people in applying for the scholarship which never existed (“IT TRAINING TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLLEGE FACULTY, STUDENTS AND STAFF” par. 1).
Plagiarism
An example of this violation is a word-for-word plagiarism. This is where one copies and pastes everything from the internet and presents as their original work.
Plagiarism is where people tend to copy other peoples ideas word after word. It denies original owners their rights to originality of their contents (“Examples of Plagiarism” par. 1).
Impersonation
An example of impersonation is where a man enters into a banking all posing to be a customer and on reaching into the banking all he turns to be a thug.
This means that a person carries themselves posing to be a completely different person.
This is dangerous because one can welcome evil people into their premises thinking that they are welcoming genuine customers (Belani 125).
Spidering
An example of this is where information is transformed by a system to mean something completely different.
Spidering is done by programmers with ill intent to confuse or tamper with information being communicated. This is harmful since people do not get the intended message in the right manner (“Simple Web Indexing System for Humans – Enhanced” par.3).
Security Violations
An example of this is where people hack into sites. For instance, people can hack into government sites and edit or obtain information without consent of government officials.
This violation can be harmful since people can use such information against the government (“INFOSGA INFOPAC Reference Guide, February 1997 Security Violations – Examples ” par. 1).
Present-day whaling activities are perpetrated by several developed nations, including Japan. It should be noted that these are states which boast of high-literacy levels among the populace. It should also be noted that these states are members of international movements established to combat the fishing of whales and other deep-sea animals. This implies that they are fully aware of the dangers posed by engaging in this activity. There is a dire need for concerted efforts by all parties involved if this menace is to be dealt with conclusively.
It is evident that little can be done by ordinary citizens in order to reduce the magnitude of this practice. This is because policies that propagate these habits are enforced by governments established by these civilians. In addition, benefits accrued from this trade play a decisive role in ensuring the economic security of these residents.
It should be noted that ordinary citizens can participate actively in the reduction and subsequent elimination of this trade. In Japan, whale products are used as food supplements for school-going children. The residents may opt to incorporate alternative-food products into their diet. This will minimize the market and demand for whale meat. In addition, persons should desist from purchasing goods that are manufactured from whale products. Priority should be given to petroleum products in a bid to reduce the reliance on sperm oil from whales (Wursig & Thewissen, 2002). This way, citizens like me will contribute towards the reduction of this trade by eliminating profitability from this trade.
Identifying the interests harbored by nations participating in this trade is indispensable. This is because this knowledge will be beneficial when establishing the reasons for and methods of reducing this trade. It should be noted that several nations, including Japan, have cited academics as the main reason for their involvement in this trade. In the same breath, conservationists championing the preservation of these animals are fighting against the decimation of the ecosystem (Tellegen & Wolsink, 1998).
It is noteworthy, that both groups represent crucial ambitions of modern society. This underscores the importance of a compromise between these parties with regards to the causes they champion (Duncan, Jancar-Webster & Switky, 2008). As a result, enforcing regulations that protect the interest of both parties is paramount if the crisis is to be resolved conclusively. With this in mind, several spots should be designated as sanctuaries, in which whale fishing is disallowed. These zones should be suitable for the breeding and growth of young whales.
These agreements should also place an annual cap on the number of whales that can be fished by a nation. It should also establish a considerable time span between successive fishing expeditions. Most importantly, an age limit should be established in order to protect young calves and allow them to develop fully.
The United States can play an integral role in ending this menace. America can use its position as a superpower to coordinate the negotiation and signing of these treaties (Broder, 2010). In addition, the nation may also take part in enforcing the signed treaties. Most importantly, America can assume the frontline in enforcing and administering retribution for nations that ignore the provisions of these treaties. This way, control and a sense of direction are instilled in the whaling society.
References
Broder, J. (2010). The U.S. Leads New Bid to Phase out Whale Hunting. The New York Times. Web.
Duncan, R., Jancar-Webster, B & Switky, B. (2008). World politics in the 21st Century. New Jersey, NJ: Cengage Learning.
Tellegen, E & Wolsink, M. (1998). Society and Its Environment: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association.
Wursig, B & Thewissen, J. (2002). Encyclopedia of marine mammals. California, CA: Gulf Professional Publishing.
The two short stories by Ken Liu, Good Hunting, and The Perfect Match, are excellent examples of the use of defamiliarization techniques. However, the way that the author uses defamiliarization differs substantially between the two works.
Whereas The Perfect Match presents us with unfamiliar concepts right from the beginning, defamiliarizing in Good Hunting develops gradually throughout the story, presenting unfamiliar concepts after the reader is drawn to believe that he or she knows where the story is going. This essay aims to explore the elements of defamiliarization that are evident in the two works and to summarize the points to show how the use of this technique differs in the stories.
The Perfect Match
The first story is full of elements of estrangement. Here, Liu presents us with an idea of a perfect future world, where everything is easier, including building relationships with people. Relationships, such as love and friendship, are one of the major focus points of the story. The dating sounds a lot easier than it is in our society: the people that the AI chooses to set up are “compatible” (Liu, The Perfect Match 5), which means that there are always shared interest to talk about and similar views on life and work to discuss.
Reviews from previous girlfriends or boyfriends are available online (Liu, The Perfect Match 5), and the AI can even estimate the length of relationship before the two people meet (Liu, The Perfect Match 1). The friendship is defamiliarized, too. Sai does not discuss his relationships with co-workers or family; instead, he dwells on the memory of how the AI comforted him after a breakup (Liu, The Perfect Match 1) and how he fully trusts the technologies (Liu, The Perfect Match 5). Comfort and trust are the features of friendship; however, in the story, they are twisted: the trust is abused, and the comfort no longer brings happiness to the character after he first turns off the AI.
The re-familiarization of relationship occurs later in the story, as the AI no longer dictates the character what to do and say. This process is estranged for the character but familiar to us: “He couldn’t count on Tilly to have made sure ahead of time that they would have topics to talk about. He couldn’t rely on Tilly’s always apropos suggestions when he was at a loss for words. He couldn’t even count on being able to look up Jenny’s ShareAll profile” (Liu, The Perfect Match 14). Lui uses a relationship scheme that is familiar to the reader to increase the contrast between the world of the story and our world. This makes the reader emphasize with the character, and the ending of the story reinforces our reality in a way that makes us wonder if we rely on technologies to much and whether or not our fate is just as inevitable as Sai’s.
Good Hunting
Despite being set in a fictional world with spirits and ghost-hunters, Good Hunting does not seem unfamiliar to the reader at the beginning. A fantasy world where father and son hunt demons, spirits, and ghosts are a popular setting. The seemingly familiar beginning of the story has a strong effect on the audience, as we start to feel that we can predict what will happen next. However, the story takes a surprising turn as the main character becomes friends with one of the spirits that he and his father used to hunt: “We’d been meeting every Qingming, every Chongyang, every Yulan, every New Year’s, occasions when families were supposed to be together” (Liu, Good Hunting 3).
From this point, the elements of estrangement appear more often. The most important element of defamiliarization in Good Hunting is magic. We learn that many kinds of magical creatures exist in the character’s world and that the lives of people depend heavily on the magic contained in the soil. While the vast part of our society does not believe in spirits and magic, these are the elements of the character’s world, and we soon become accustomed to them. This has a strong effect on our point of view: when the British businessmen come to the village to start building a railroad, we begin seeing industrialization as unfamiliar and evil. Therefore, by offering elements of estrangement and familiarizing the reader with them, the author emphasizes the main conflict behind the story: the opposition of people and nature.
Conclusion
Overall, the two stories present two different ways of using defamiliarization in literature. In The Perfect Match, defamiliarization is used to establish a comparison between our society and the world of the story, which emphasizes the author’s message. In Good Hunting, on the other hand, the readers are familiarized with what they initially perceive as elements of estrangement; this prompts the reader to empathize with the characters and draws attention to the problem of human impact on the planet and nature.
The hardest part in writing this essay was gathering materials from the texts. Particularly in Good Hunting, it was difficult to determine the elements of estrangement due to the fantasy setting. The easiest part, on the other hand, was understanding the effects of defamiliarization. I believe that my essay offers a thorough analysis of the author’s use of the technique. However, I think that I could work on providing more examples from the texts to support the argument. The question that I would like to ask the reader is, “Why do you think the use of defamiliarization is different in the two works?” because I want to explore the topic further and to hear a different point of view.
Aubry, P., Guillemain, M., & Sorrenti, M. (2020). Increasing the trust in hunting bag statistics: why random selection of hunters is so important. Journal of Ecological Indicators, 117, 1-13. Web.
Aubry et al. (2020) investigate the reliability of hunting bags, a data source for studies on harvested species in reporting population abundance, and the use of such data, including the study of predator-prey relationships, population fluctuation, and game species. The article provides approaches to assessing the rate of hunting with specific numbers obtained in the previous hunting bags while discussing the validity and comparison of each method. Authors show that different hunting statistics are biased following the volunteer approach through online and phone interviews and questionnaires, leading to wrong and subjective wildlife harvesting indicators. The study is essential in the study providing estimated data on hunting to support an argument on the extent of the activity and, therefore, its impact on humans, society, economic growth, and income. The statistics and view on the partial data are essential to verify and defend other information from other researches in the study about the nature and extent of hunting alongside the journey on hunting in the US.
Bilgic, A., Florkowski, W. J., Yoder, J., & Schreiner, D. F. (2008). Estimating fishing and hunting leisure spending shares in the United States. Journal of Tourism Management, 29(4), 771-782. Web.
Bilgic et al. (2008) investigate the relationship between spending on hunting and fishing for leisure in the US, arguing that the two compliments each other with a projected decline in hunting for fishing following differences in expenses and income. The article provides details about the economic benefits of hunting, including payment from the entrance fee and transport cost to the site that has increased following a decrease in Americans’ leisure time. Although hunting and fishing provide the same benefits to a tourist and a hunter, fishing is taking over hunting due to low expenses and more economic benefits, although there is increased income from the activity. The source supports the argument on hunting’s economic benefits, including income to the government through tourism and wages to locals through activities and other related services. The article will also guide in concluding the best approach to control hunting following information on alternative activities, fishing with similar benefits but fewer risks to the environment.
Chapagain, B. P., & Poudyal, N. C. (2020). Economic benefit of wildlife reintroduction: A case of elk hunting in Tennessee, USA. Journal of environmental management, 269, 1-8. Web.
The article analyzes the restoration of elks and their related hunting in the US with main issues such as the cost of reintroduction and benefits of wildlife which include hunting to provide economic benefits to the country and hunters. Chapagain and Poudyal (2020) demonstrate that the wildlife’s economic benefits, both met and unmet, are approximately $2 million and influences policies that favor support in restoring wild animals, with an example of elks in Tennessee. The article provides essential details on hunting’s benefits, including economic benefits to the government through entrance fees to the conservancy, income to the hunters, and animal transporters. Hunting is a recreational activity that provides social and economic paybacks to the community next to the site as they play games with tourists watching. The article is essential in studying licensing hunting in the US by providing details about the economic benefits, supporting the argument on revenue-making through sports hunting.
Di Minin, E., Clements, H. S., Correia, R. A., Cortés-Capano, G., Fink, C., Haukka, A., Hausmann, A., Kulkarni, R. & Bradshaw, C. J. (2021). Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth, 4(2), 238-253. Web.
Di Minin et al. (2021) investigates the impact of recreational hunting on socioeconomic and sustainability benefits while arguing that past studies fail to focus on some extinct species and, therefore, fail to show the actual effects of the two advantages. The authors show that studies demonstrate adverse outcomes on species conservation through recreational hunting, with some small animals and birds becoming a threat to extinction with socioeconomic benefits while others reveal advantages in the two variables. Among the advantages of recreational hunting includes reduced funds for anti-poaching programs, but in some cases and areas, the resources needed to fight poaching increase as people learn the benefits of wild animals in improving socioeconomic factors. The source is vital in providing details to and against hunting in areas such as economic, cultural, and social to argue in the case of licensing the activity in the US. Authors include vital details that show the value of hunting on the community from different studies to summarize the actual effects and argue on the activities’ ethics.
Notarangelo, R. (2016). Hunting Down the Meaning of the Second Amendment: An American Right to Pursue Game. South Dakota Law Review, 61(2), 201-241. Web.
Notarangelo (2016) deconstructs the second amendment to evaluate the various perspectives on its accommodation or lack, therefore of hunting following court decisions and comments from other scholars. The author analyses and compares the foundation of laws of carrying guns in American history based on hunting alongside the second amendment. Findings indicate that the second amendment provides Americans’ right to carry guns for hunting, although it was essential to prevent criminal activities associated with carrying firearms, especially in wildlife sites. Following a historical analysis, the authors provide that hunting is an ethical and custom practice and benefits Americans through gaming and income where hunters sell the animals and use them for food. The source helps provide information to support the ethical nature of hunting, its economic benefits to the community and individual members, and its dangers to humans and society.
Rosin, C. (2014). Does hunting threaten timber regeneration in selectively logged tropical forests? Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, 331, 153-164. Web.
Rosin (2014) explores the topics of plant-animal interaction that affects timber production in quality and quantity from vital species and the influence of hunting on the relationship. The authors argue that improper management of the relationship between plants, animals, and hunting risks forest biodiversity, timber production, and forest land conversation for non-forest purposes. The article provides details about the conducive environment for proper growth of tree species to produce good wood where hunted animals make up the ecosystem, helping in seed dispersion and control of other plants that compete for nutrients air in the forest. There are also details on the effects of hunting on such an ecosystem where hunters target vital animals, including large ones that can spread huge seeds for good timber trees. The source is crucial to support discussion on the impact of hunting on the structure of Earth’s ecosystems by providing details on how hunters take away important animals with further influence or some plant species.
Strong, M., & Silva, J. A. (2020). Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional well-being. Journal of Biological Conservation, 243, 1-9. Web.
The article reports findings from an investigation on the impact of burning hunting on households, with authors arguing that the prohibition leads to impoverished lives in rural areas where people depend on animals for income and food. Strong and Silva (2020) demonstrate the limitations of wildlife in human life, including the destruction of livestock, damage to crops, and loss of lives, while showing that such animals can benefit through hunting by providing food to low-income families. More details about the significance of hunting reveal cultural and social treasure in poaching, for instance, defiance, following marginalization and dehumanization of people compared to animals where the government provides more protection to the various sites. The source is essential to give details about the history of hunting and its significance to the community that might support its existence. Information on rural hunting is also vital in showing the extent of the activity to defend its impact on the erosion of ecosystems and other benefits such as low quality and quality of timber.
References
Aubry, P., Guillemain, M., & Sorrenti, M. (2020). Increasing the trust in hunting bag statistics: why random selection of hunters is so important. Journal of Ecological Indicators, 117, 1-13. Web.
Bilgic, A., Florkowski, W. J., Yoder, J., & Schreiner, D. F. (2008). Estimating fishing and hunting leisure spending shares in the United States. Journal of Tourism Management, 29(4), 771-782. Web.
Chapagain, B. P., & Poudyal, N. C. (2020). Economic benefit of wildlife reintroduction: A case of elk hunting in Tennessee, USA. Journal of environmental management, 269, 1-8. Web.
Di Minin, E., Clements, H. S., Correia, R. A., Cortés-Capano, G., Fink, C., Haukka, A., Hausmann, A., Kulkarni, R. & Bradshaw, C. J. (2021). Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth, 4(2), 238-253. Web.
Notarangelo, R. (2016). Hunting Down the Meaning of the Second Amendment: An American Right to Pursue Game. South Dakota Law Review, 61(2), 201-241. Web.
Rosin, C. (2014). Does hunting threaten timber regeneration in selectively logged tropical forests? Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, 331, 153-164. Web.
Strong, M., & Silva, J. A. (2020). Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional well-being. Journal of Biological Conservation, 243, 1-9. Web.
Hunting is a human economic activity that has been there for a long time and has acted to supplement food-production activities like farming and livestock keeping. Before modern-day hunting, the affair was a benefit of magnanimity but later on normalized and became a regular practice in many communities, leading to the destruction of the biodiversity in the ecosystem. Game chasing has since become a recreational activity and is currently governed by strict laws in the US. The positive effects linked with the exercise include the revenue it generates for the economy through the sale of animal products and the reintroduction of game species that were previously phased out by poaching activities. Nonetheless, venery of any form should be banned as it exposes the game to suffering, and extinction, in addition to endangering the animal species. Although the US established game stalking as a truly American tradition centuries ago, the practice is problematic in the light of today’s values; it benefits human society while threatening the ecosystem immensely.
Income-generating Venture over the Planet’s Ecosystems
There is an ongoing discussion as to whether hunting is ruining the structure of Earth’s ecosystems. Unregulated game stalking can lead to a decrease in the number of species and subsequently to extinction (Di Minin et al., 2021). Furthermore, increased chasing of vertebrate seed dispersers results in minimized ovule transfer for various plant species and a change in ecological composition in favor of plants whose seeds are dispersed by abiotic means (Rosin, 2014). The benefits attached to coursing can contribute immensely to the species’ conservation and reintroduction into areas where they had been extirpated, which often supports habitat conservation and rehabilitation (Di Minin et al., 2021). Species extinction, however, has been cited as one of the most serious problems associated with poaching. This has sparked public interest in ecological restoration as well as US government intervention in the programs aimed at wildlife conservation (Di Minin et al., 2021). Research studies on two mammals, lions, and leopards, showed that the animals are mostly hunted for trophies and are most likely to be extirpated if game killing is unchecked (Di Minin et al., 2021). Truly, the impacts of wildlife destruction on the environment are unpropitious.
Game pursuit in America has more economic benefits to the government in terms of the revenue which is collected. In its entirety, hunting contributes to employment creation by about 700,000 jobs countrywide (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). According to research, the yearly spending of 14 million hunters goes up to $ 22.1 billion (Bilgic et al., 2008). Before the Covid 19 pandemic, it was estimated that out of fifteen Americans aged sixteen years and above, at least one chooses to spend his or her money on hunting activity (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). As it turns out, venery provides financial benefits to the government and that is why the practice is not yet abolished.
Hunting as a Sport – Yet Another Revenue Maker
Like any other sport, hunting creates a platform for entertainment for interested parties. People enjoy shooting animals, and practicing sharpshooting skills as this also sharpens their focus dexterities (Di Minin et al., 2021). One needs to gain steady ground before hitting the target and therefore game chasing becomes an exercise in itself (Di Minin et al., 2021). Moreover, targeting alone ensures that the abdominal muscles’ weights are improved as the back sustains the pressure resulting from the daily activities (Di Minin et al., 2021). However, as a sport and also wildlife management activity, the government has initiated measures to ensure that venery is preserved. In the USA for instance, there is a law which is commonly referred to as the Second Amendment that permits possession of firearms for hunting purposes (Notarangelo, 2016). Also, there exist regulations setting daily and seasonal coursing limits to control excessive wildlife killings (Strong & Silva, 2020). Therefore, game stalking brings about self-fulfillment when appropriately regulated within the confines of national policies.
International unity and social integration are always fostered through hunting sports activities. Being a sport, wildlife shooting brings various factions together to compete against each other (Strong & Silva, 2020). As the communities invite one another, a friendship is created amongst them (Strong & Silva, 2020). Tourism also benefits from game chasing as a sporting exercise. Direct spending by the sport hunters at the hotels, gyms, and recreational facilities of the hosts rejuvenates the local economy (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). Remarkably, coursing competition events improve an outlook of a group that hosts such tournaments and this may make the community or the country to be a destination for tourists (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). On the whole, peaceful co-existence in society is guaranteed through game-killing activities.
Wildlife Population Control and Ecosystem
Undoubtedly, nature is structured in a way to be independent and self-regulating – it does not require any aid or intervention from humans. Humanly controlled wildlife destruction only helps in ensuring that there is a sufficient quantity of food for an existent number of animals living in a particular domain (Di Minin et al., 2021). Balancing the animal population with the amount of food enables the animals to attain their genetic potential (Di Minin et al., 2021). Nevertheless, not all cases warrant hunting as a measure to control the population of animals in the natural world. Coursing can only be applied to the animal populace if for instance the carrying capacity of a certain habitat is exceeded hence leading to abuse of the haunt (Strong & Silva, 2020). Similarly, recreational venery is used in cases where there exists an over-abundance of specific species of an organism (Di Minin et al., 2021). Equally important, game stalking is used in situations where there are invasive species that were originally not found in a particular niche (Di Minin et al., 2021). When uncontrolled, the destruction of nature brings about calamities upon human life.
Managing populations, especially those of animals, bring certain advantages to the ecological system and therefore saves the natural habitat. Controlled recreational hunting of herbivores such as deer ensures that the essential homes of smaller organisms are maintained (Rosin, 2014). Moreover, checked hunting activities along riparian zones, for instance, the streams and the lakes, ensure that the homes to wattle vegetation, the amphibian, and crocodiles are preserved (Rosin, 2014). In summary, hunting in itself is an activity that is also used to bring about ecological sustainability.
Hunting as a Food Source
Though hunting is not a primal food source anymore, people still tend to put the meat of the wildlife at a high value. In international food joints, game flesh forms an integral part of the menus because recreational hunting has become a predominant fragment of diets (Strong & Silva, 2020). An important result obtained after investigating the motives behind the killing of game animals was that hunting provided an opportunity for obtaining meat for household consumption (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). When scientific research was done to compare the number of human-consumable wild animals against those that are not eaten, hunting bags for the former were more than the latter (Aubrey et al., 2020). In essence, this has led to the conclusion that humans kill wild animals for meat than for any other purpose.
One of the prime advantages game meat has over types of the flesh is that it has many health benefits. Due to the low quantities of fat they possess, game nourishment is highly recommended by nutritionists as an efficient source of good fats (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). Besides, wild grub is regarded as the best for those people who would want to reduce weight as it has lower calorie contents than other muscles (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). The diets of the wild creatures are hormone-free hence the meats of such animals have no antibiotics (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). In brief, the forages that the wild game feeds on, make their eats to be natural and healthy.
The Effects of Hunting on Economic Growth
Recreational hunting may remove animals from the environment but on the positive side, it may also have other economic benefits. Individual states in the US can collect revenue for hunting licenses, and additional park fees that they use for environmental beautification projects (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). Also, some hunters contribute on their own to the organizations tasked with the responsibility of preserving wildlife and the natural environment (Chapagain & Poudyal, 2020). Consequently, recreational hunting has contributed to economic development, both at the local and national levels.
Additional investigation on recreational hunting shows existent growing concern over the risks to human life that are associated with game chasing. Recreational coursing might increase the dangers of human vulnerability to animal disease transmission (Strong & Silva, 2020). Moreover, the meat of the game animals killed using lead ammunition might be the source of the metal which when later transferred to the human body through consumption of the meat, will end in poisoning (Di Minin et al., 2021). In essence, game hunting might result in the contraction of diseases either directly or indirectly.
Controversies and contestations marring the discussions around game hunting always put into consideration the rights of animals at the center stage. Public admittance of any kind of recreational hunting has today decreased as opposed to the past, and great significance has been placed on the rights of animals (Strong & Silva, 2020). Anti-poaching arguments emanate from the viewpoint of animal welfare, discussing more on individual entitlements of the organism overpopulation management strategies that justify such killings (Di Minin et al., 2021). Undeniably, animal rights are serving to protect animals from unwarranted destruction by gamers and illegal poachers.
Conclusion
In summary, the past regularization of recreational hunting by the US as a nation has made the practice to be widespread therefore posing a risk to the existence of wild animals because of the current policies. Several arguments have been put forward to show how Earth’s ecosystem is getting ruined due to increased gaming activities despite the revenue which is obtained. For hunters, a platform for entertainment is gotten from the sporting action of wildlife chasing and this ignites the urge for competition. Further, recreational coursing promotes peaceful existence between nations, international unity, and tourism. In the natural world, there exists a self-sustaining mechanism that enables the environment to deal with any destruction aimed at it. Proper management of natural resources ensures continuity of generations of organisms, as their habitats are maintained. Other benefits that can be obtained from venery include healthy meat and economic developments through the funds collected by license issuance. Based on the analysis of the effects of recreational animal stalking, the US government should not allow continued licensing of the activity.
References
Aubry, P., Guillemain, M., & Sorrenti, M. (2020). Increasing the trust in hunting bag statistics: why random selection of hunters is so important. Journal of Ecological Indicators, 117, 1-13. Web.
Bilgic, A., Florkowski, W. J., Yoder, J., & Schreiner, D. F. (2008). Estimating fishing and hunting leisure spending shares in the United States. Journal of Tourism Management, 29(4), 771-782. Web.
Chapagain, B. P., & Poudyal, N. C. (2020). Economic benefit of wildlife reintroduction: A case of elk hunting in Tennessee, USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 269, 1-8. Web.
Di Minin, E., Clements, H. S., Correia, R. A., Cortés-Capano, G., Fink, C., Haukka, A., Hausmann, A., Kulkarni, R. & Bradshaw, C. J. (2021). Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth, 4(2), 238-253. Web.
Notarangelo, R. (2016). Hunting Down the Meaning of the Second Amendment: An American Right to Pursue Game. South Dakota Law Review, 61(2), 201-241. Web.
Rosin, C. (2014). Does hunting threaten timber regeneration in selectively logged tropical forests? Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, 331, 153-164. Web.
Strong, M., & Silva, J. A. (2020). Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional well-being. Journal of Biological Conservation, 243, 1-9. Web.
It is normally the case that endeavors involve the harvesting of ocean resources, such as fish, clams, and a variety of crustaceans, to be done in order to fulfill a specific need. This justifies the consumption of various types of ocean resources since without them, a lot of societies all around the world dependent on daily supplies of this particular method of sustenance will starve as a result (Fox, 2002).
If there were no inherent need to supply populations with such resources, then the activity of harvesting various live animals from the sea could be meant as needless slaughter (Fears, 2009). It is based on this that Japanese continued whaling activities under the guise of “scientific research” can be categorized as a form of unnecessary killing since based on the research of Christian et al.
(2008), Japanese population neither requires the large quantities of whale meat (500 whales per year) that are caught and sold nor does whale meat constitute a major part of the average Japanese citizen’s diet. The primary defense of the Japanese government, regarding the sale of whale meat within local markets, is that whale meat consumption is an integral part of Japanese culture.
Such a defense is rather ambiguous given the aforementioned fact that most people in Japan have rarely, if ever, tasted or even seen whale meat. The main point of contention between Japan and other countries that condemn the act of hunting down whales is the method of justification utilized by the Japanese government which entails “scientific research” as the basis behind its activities of whale hunting.
While such an excuse may be valid, if a few specimens are caught through internationally sanctioned actions each year in order to examine the current status of the species, the fact remains the same that Japanese whaling ships often catch 500 or more whales annually. Such a number is far beyond what can normally be construed as “catching for the sake of scientific research” since 500 species taken at any one time in order to examine population rates and the general health of the species are inherently unjustifiable given the numbers involved.
Based on this, it must be questioned whether the act of whaling, scientific or not, should be outright banned or justified based on traditional heritage and the concept of collecting scientific data. The act of whaling by the Japanese should be prevented since they do not own exclusive rights to whales and are subject to the concept of international joint ownership of marine species.
Legal Principles Involved
First and foremost, it must be noted that whaling itself is illegal as per the ratification of international treaties that specifically ban the harvesting of species that are vulnerable or endangered (Stoett, 1997). Whaling for the purpose of scientific research, on the other hand, is allowed and utilized by Japanese whalers in conjunction with section 2 of Article VIII of the convention on whaling set by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which specifically states that whales caught under special permits for scientific research should be processed and disposed of in a practical fashion that is in accordance with the directions given by the issuer of the permit.
What this means is that whalers who catch whales for “scientific research” are under the legal obligation to dispose the excess parts of the whale in a practical fashion. In this particular case, it involves selling whale meat. Thus, from a legal perspective, the act of selling whale meat gained through “scientific research” is perfectly legal. While it is considered “legal” under such an approach, it must be questioned whether the “spirit of the law” (i.e. the main intent of the convention on international whaling) is followed or outright violated.
From an ethical perspective, it can be seen that that spirit of the law is not followed by the Japanese government, and from a certain perspective, can be construed as an insult to other nations since the sanctity of following ratified treaties is the very basis of international law. When examining the basis of the treaty established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in relation to the protection of the whale species it can be seen that the entirety of the document was meant to prevent all forms of commercial exploitation of a species whose populations have been deemed as vulnerable.
The reason behind this is quite simple, even limited hunting of a particular subspecies of whale whose populations have increased (as seen in the case of the Minkie whale) still prevents whale populations as a whole from returning to their original numbers.
Cultural Traditions and Scientific Research Vs International Joint Ownership
In relation to the concept of violations of international law, the failure of the Japanese government to acknowledge joint ownership of ocean based resources by all nations within international waters comes. While Japan justifies the hunting of whales under the concepts of cultural traditions and scientific research, the country does not take into consideration the concept of international joint ownership of marine species (Stevenson, Gordon, & Begun, 2000).
A large percentage of the whales are hunted within international waters, as such the actions of the whalers are subject to review by other countries since their rights to the species are also violated by what is perceived as a unilateral action for hunting versus a multilateral consensus against it. Since Japan does not have exclusive ownership over marine species within international waters, the government of the country has no choice but to acknowledge international consensus, regarding proper harvesting practices (Yannacopolou, 2011).
While Japan may justify the hunting of whales under aspects related to cultural traditions and scientific research, the fact remains that since Japan is part of an international community, it has to follow the various rules and regulations that enable peaceful relations between countries, regardless of their potential impact on cultural values and scientific knowledge. This is the basis on which all states interact with one another with constant violations of such unspoken rules, often resulting in condemnation and isolation as seen in the case of North Korea.
It must also be noted that the hunting of various whale species by Japan is not the first instance where Japan has entirely discounted the concept of the joint ownership of species, for example, the population of Blue Fin Tuna which is considered a cultural delicacy in Japan has been declining as of late due to excessive over consumption of which 90% is attributed to Japan.
The problem is that the Japanese have once again used the excuse of culture and tradition as the basis for their continued hunting of the species despite evidence showing that the populations are nearing a critical level wherein they will no longer be able to become a sustainable food source.
Interestingly enough, despite the sheer amount of data shown by a variety of marine biologists from different countries showing the obvious decline of the species, data from Japan’s own scientific institutions shows that the populations are stable and continue to be a viable food source.
Such an argument is almost similar to the one used by Japan regarding the current populations of whales. Taking this into consideration, it can be assumed that some form of falsification of data is currently being utilized in order to justify actions which are clearly in violation of the shared rights of all nations.
Emotion versus Scientific Data
The final argument of Japan in justifying its practice states that the whale species that whalers “scientifically capture” in fact have sustainable populations (such as the Minkie whale which has a population consisting of 300,000) and that the basis for the ban on whaling is an emotional rather than a scientific response based on clear population estimates (Whaling, 2009).
The inherent problem with such a statement is that while it may be true that 300,000 species seem like a sustainable number, the fact is that whale population numbers 300,000 species still places Minkie whales on the vulnerable species list. From a certain perspective it can be stated that Japan does have a point in that the basis behind the current ideas behind the protection of whales has its roots in emotions derived from popular culture sentiments and the way in which whales have been portrayed by the media.
Yet, what must be understood is that such sentiments exist for a variety of species in the world such as the Bald Headed Eagle in the U.S., Giant Pandas in China, the Monkey Eating Eagle in the Philippines and an assortment of other creatures that are either vulnerable or endangered. This sentiment is born out of a distinct appreciation of the beauty of nature and the fragility of life and even Japan has a similar form of sentiment regarding the rare Hokkaido deer.
Even if such species are neither used as food sources nor are they valuable in terms of any medicinal qualities, their rarity and fragility creates a distinctive emotional feeling of attachment and guilt over the impact of humanity’s activities on nature and the necessity of protecting such creatures. The same feeling is attributed to whales by a vast majority of nations wherein they are viewed as a majestic wonder of nature that creates awe and fascination as well as the desire to protect a species that has been impacted by humanity’s activities.
As such, even if scientific data says that the population of whales is in fact increasing it is likely that most of the world would still choose to protect the species. It is this particular aspect of the argument to protect whales that Japan fails to recognize since in its opinion it is protecting its own cultural tradition when in reality the country is slowly but surely vilifying itself in the eyes of the international population due to its continued hunting of a species that many view as beautiful and majestic.
Understanding the Basis of Why Japanese Society Condones the Hunting of Whales
The reason why Japanese society condones the act of whaling even to the point that it clearly violates international norms and angers other nations is due to the fact that the ethos of whaling hunting as a part of Japanese culture has been firmly promoted by numerous groups. An examination of the historical nature of ethos has shown that in one way or another despite the apparent ethical appearance of a certain type of ethos there is always an underlying reason behind its creation which does in fact create a beneficial effect for the individuals that created it.
This can be seen in the case of the Japanese whaling industry who promotes the sale of whale meat as being part of the cultural tradition of the country. Furthermore, it must be noted that ethos is not something that is inherent but rather something that has been created and manufactured with a surface image in order to fulfill a particular purpose. It is often utilized as a method of convincing people or justifying a particular set of actions and as such it is crafted in such a way so as to be convincing, believable and thus adaptable.
For example when ordering someone to go into battle you do not tell them that the possibility of them dying is high rather you tell them to fight for national pride, democracy, freedom etc., even though the fact of the matter is that person will most likely die. In a sense ethos is a device utilized in order to manipulate public perception regarding truth in such a way that it promotes a particular idea on the basis of the common good but in fact it was created in order to carry out a particular action.
When examining such facets of ethos and comparing it to the attitude of Japanese society in relation to whale hunting it becomes obvious that there is a group behind the proliferation of the ethos of whale hunting as an important aspect of Japan’s cultural heritage when in fact it clearly is not.
What must be understood is that Ethos can also refer to the way in which a person portrays themselves in an argument, in a sense that it is a method in which persuaders present an “image” to people that they are attempting to persuade. This particular “image” refers to a persuaders “character” in the sense that a person is attempting to persuade another person of the righteousness of their statements based on their inherent character.
In the case of ethos it is a form of “artifice”, meaning that is created, manufactured, made, constructed etc. It can be considered a type of surface image which may in fact have an entirely fictitious relationship to what is actually true. Thus, the “image” in this particular case is one which upholds cultural tradition when in reality it is merely more profit.
Conclusion
Based on the various arguments and facts presented, it can be seen that Japan has a flimsy excuse for justifying its actions and, as such, the act of whaling by the Japanese should be prevented since they do not own exclusive rights to whales and are subject to the concept of international joint ownership of marine species.
While it may be true that whales are edible, the fact remains that their current numbers are nowhere near adequate and call for proper protection and prevention from harvesting until such their populations grow to be stable.
Reference List
Christian, C,Peranio, K, Contreras, J., Kushe.r, A., Braiker, B. &McNicoll, T. (2008).
Ecopolitics:why japan risks its place in the world to hunt whales. Newsweek International, 121. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Fears, N. (2009). Examining the claims of modern whalers: are there arguments for whaling. Brighthub, 1. Retrieved from www.brighthub.com
Fox, M. (2002). The inuit case for whaling. BBC New World Edition. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Stevenson, S., Gordon, D., & Begun, B. (2000).Plotting a Strategy for Slaughter. Newsweek, 135(10), 8. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Stoett, P. (1997). The international politics of whaling.Vancouver: UBS Press, 1997. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Whaling (2009). Whaling campaigners aim to cut Japan’s hunting fleet. Daily Mail.p. 25. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Yannacopolou, B. (2011). Targeting the whale hunters: On patrol with the sea shepherd. Ecologist Magazine, 36(2), 12. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
The problem of unregulated hunting in wildlife refuges causes a significant harm to the environment and leads to the extinction of numerous species. The problem is aggravated by the fact that unregulated hunting often leads to illegal hunting activities in wildlife refuges, thus creating an even more depressing situation. Furthermore, the existing regulations regarding hunting in wildlife refuges could require more concrete wording and the introduction of specific boundaries. At present, 85% of its saltwater marshes are used for agricultural purposes (San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2018).
By allowing wildlife hunting as the means of controlling animal population and thus maintaining balance in the selected ecosystem, one will create a sustainable environment in which endangered species will be preserved, while the ones that are in excess are controlled.
To analyze the problem of wildlife hunting in depth, one will need to view it from the perspective of the economic theory. To identify and study the implications of the existing regulations and the possibilities of improving them, the case of the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge (SBP) in Northern California (NC) will be considered. Specifically, the program of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the economic factors that affect their implementation will be observed. It is expected that the outcomes of the analysis will inform the further choices in managing the issue of wildlife hunting in NC.
Issue Description
Basic Facts
The SBP is located in the San Francisco Estuaryand consists of eight units, most of which are owned and controlled by the CDFW. However, some of its parts belong to private owners. Herein lies the primary problem of the SPB, which requires that both parties to whom the area belongs should supervise the process of managing wildlife hunting (San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Climate Adaptation Plan 2016). Therefore, the further negotiation and agreement between the owners of the area will have to be conducted.
At present, the problem of illegal and unregulated hunting in wildlife refuges has gained particularly great significance due to the implications that it has on the environment and the economy of the state. Specifically, the lack of consistency in the existing guidelines for managing wildlife population affects both the species that inhabit the SPB and the people that live in the vicinity. The existing programs seem to address only one side of the argument, not to mention the lack of any other perspective apart from the environmental one. As a result, the general statement appears to be rather one-sided and lacking the needed perspective.
In addition, the lack of regulations and the prohibition of hunting in wildlife refuges in its entirety has led to the overpopulation of certain species and the introduction of imbalance to the ecosystem, with the ensuing threat to the rest of the NC wildlife. Particularly, options for hunting will need to be opened, with the possibility of controlling wildlife species and reducing the detrimental effects that invasive ones have on the development of the habitat and the ecosystem of SPB, in general.
Without the analysis of economic factors that affect the quality of animal care and the restoration of unique habitats, one will not be able to improve the existing situation. However, by considering some of the economic and financial constraints, as well as the cultural issues that contribute to the aggravation of the issue, one will be able to restore the park. Specifically, the damages that wild animals cause to the agriculture need to be taken into consideration when handling the issue and revisiting the key factors affecting the park.
In addition, the significance of agriculture, in general, as well as the detrimental effects that increased populations of some species have on it will be taken into consideration. It is critical for SPB owners to realize that the location has to be governed based on the principles of sustainability, which includes restricting the negative impacts of some of the SPB’s inhabitants.
History and Legal Framework
In retrospect, the unlimited opportunities for hunting and the absence of a relevant legislation have affected the North American wildlife disastrously, causing several species to become extinct and endangering a wide array of others (Serenari and Peterson 2018). For instance, the grey wolf, which is an endemic to the NC environment, requires a specific conservation strategy that prevents it from going extinct (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). The unceasing hunting that had been taking place in the BC environment has affected the local habitats and species, especially those endemic to the area, in a most deplorable way, causing many of them to go extinct, while others appeared to be on the verge of extinction (Peterson and Nelson 2017).
The SP area is not an exception to the specified phenomenon, wildlife preservation has been the issue of the critical concern in the designated area over the years of its existence. Specifically, the influence of people’s activities on SPB has been profound and quite harmful, with contamination rates rising consistently (Serenari and Peterson 2018). Furthermore, the process of conversing wildlife habitats to agricultural facilities has had its toll on the endemic species of the area, causing numerous instances of wildlife species extinction. Therefore, the current state of the SPB area can be described as critical.
It would be wrong to declare that no actions have been taken to address the specified concern. Quite the contrary, several regulations prohibiting hunting wildlife have been issued over the past few decades, including the restriction of hunting in the SPB area, have been issued. The identified regulations have set very rigid and firm boundaries in regard to the preservation of wildlife and were clearly designed in good faith. However, the implications of the specified standards were not contemplated properly, which led to the development of issues associated with invasive species and the changes in the natural habitat (Southern Highlands Reserve 2018). Therefore, the existing approach toward sustaining the SPB needs to be redesigned toward a more sensible framework that would allow a positive shift.
However, the specified measures coexist with the current approach toward permitting hunting in wildlife refuges at specific hours. For instance, the hunting regulations that are currently enacted in the SPB area ensure that hunting ducks is allowed on the territory of the refuge for the people that have a California hunting license, a Federal Duck Stamp, a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation, and an identification card (San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2018). Therefore, it would not be an understatement to claim that the recent regulations in regard to hunting have been rather inconsistent at SPB.
Economic Analysis: Exploring the Problem
In order to disentangle the existing set of problems at SPB, one will need to study not only environmental but also economic factors that have affected the situation. Furthermore, the financial and political aspects of the problem will have to be addressed as well. Specifically, the concern of managing and allocating resources properly should be given attention along with the focus on changing the existing policies concerning hunting. Moreover, the specified process should start with a sociocultural perspective and a change in people’s perception of wildlife preservation. For instance, one will need to introduce the people that are interested in hunting wildlife to the concepts of
From the economic perspective, it would be erroneous to label all actions that have been taken to change the SPB environment as strictly detrimental to the wildlife. For instance, farming activities that have been taking place in the SPB setting and revolving around the preservation of the wetland area have had a positive effect. Particularly, some of the unique habitats of the SPB environment have been preserved successfully, including the wetlands mentioned above and native grasslands (San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2018). Therefore, supporting some of the initiatives that have been undertaken in the SOB context by the CN state authorities is necessary since it will allow restoring the wildlife of the area.
Moreover, one will need to keep in mind that the effects of hunting invasive species in wildlife refuges contribute to a rapid boost in the economic growth rates. Specifically, the introduction of a regulation that will enable people to hunt pervasive species will lead to the creation of numerous job openings in the specified setting. The introduction of additional job opportunities, in turn, will lead to a gradual rise in the economic performance of local organizations, as well as household income rates of the area residents (Dinets 2015). As a result, additional financial resources for protecting the wildlife that faces the threat of extinction in SPB will be built.
Therefore, the issue under analysis is a graphic example of the tragedy of the commons. Although the current regulations regarding wildlife hunting could be seen as sensible at first glance, they appear to be completely detrimental to the environment upon closer scrutiny. The tragedy of the commons manifests itself in the lack of a sustainable approach toward the existing hunting regulations and the propensity toward allowing hunting without any regard for the species that it affects. While the general rule of thumb used at SPB seems legitimate and serves to identify the activities that are downright harmful to the habitat and the species that live in it, one should also consider the economic factors that shape the specified setting.
Nonetheless, even with the current approach toward managing the instances of wildlife hunting, the NC authorities misinterpret the specifics of the area and the context in which these regulations are taken. Particularly, it is critical to ensure that the populations of species that have a vastly negative effect on the rest of the SPB endemics and its habitat should be controlled respectively. The specified change can be taken by reconsidering the existing legal framework and shaping the focus of the economic strategy adopted by the local authorities (Schaul 2014).
In addition, the fact that the proposed solution will contribute to the creation of new job opportunities shows that it will maximize the potential of SPB and the utility of its current resources, thus contributing to a gradual economic growth and providing additional opportunities for changing the existing situation.
It should be borne in mind that abolishing hunting wildlife in the SBP setting will lead to a massive surge in job losses and the following economic downfall. Creating job opportunities that will create premises for monitoring the current status of wildlife, the number of species within each population, and other factors that determine hunting-related decisions, in turn, is a much more valid solution. In addition, it is critical to reconsider the current approach toward resource management. Since the mismanagement of the available assets lies at the core of the tragedy of commons, the rearrangement of the approaches toward using natural resources should be seen as the crucial step toward improving the existing situation.
Moreover, when considering a change in the current approach toward the hunting policies in the SPB setting, one should keep in mind the economic value of hunting. With the financial benefits that it will produce, the alteration to the existing regulations may assist in building a support system for the entire SPB. Furthermore, the application of the proposed strategy will entail a gradual change in the attitudes toward the idea of using natural resources and changing the existing habitats. It is expected that the suggested change will produce tangible results due to the focus on economic growth as one of the critical constituents of change. By encouraging economic improvements, one will receive financial income that can be used to manage the wildlife refuge more efficiently.
Policy Criticism and Recommendations
Criticism
The policy adopted presently to be the SPB authorities could use a revision. As stressed above, the lack of understanding regarding the effects that hunting has on the changes in the target environment should be deemed as one of the key contributors to the development of the problem. While the existing framework is aimed at environmentalism and the relevant objectives, local authorities seem to overlook some of the effects that hunting wildlife has on the SPB environment. Specifically, it is important to take notice of the species that may affect the development of other inhabitants of the area negatively.
With the uncontrolled rise in the population of one of the species, significant difficulties are expected. Hunting, in turn, allows keeping the number of dominant species under control, thus producing the setting in which other species can thrive, and in which the SPB environment will remain sustainable.
The existing policy is clearly geared toward environmentalism and the preservation of species, which is an admittedly noble cause to pursue. However, in their endeavors at shielding the SPB environment from harm, the local authorities forget about the positive outcomes of wildlife hunting. Specifically, the fact that the identified activity also allows restricting the negative impact of dominant species on the rest of the wildlife remains neglected. The specified omission should not be left unattended; instead, one will have to recognize the economic and environmental advantages of the specified phenomenon, thus introducing changes to the existing regulation and offering wildlife hunting opportunities to limit the impact of the invasive species on the SPB setting.
Recommendations
When considering the possible changes that could be made to the current situation at SOB, one should mention alterations in the hunting policies with regard to economic factors. The hunting regulations that have been in existence over the past few years have only recently suffered serious changes geared toward environmentalism and preservation of species. However, they have been lacking the economic constituent that would help put the problem into a perspective and allow addressing it as a complex issue that requires an appropriate solution.
The introduction of hunting opportunities as the method of leveraging the existing natural resources, particularly, the species that can be deemed as either excessive and thus harmful or invasive and therefore affecting the SPB setting negatively. Since hunting contributes to the economy of California and particularly NC significantly, the specified activity needs to be encouraged in order to sustain the SOB, the species that inhabit it, and the local wildlife, in general (Kays et al. 2017). Therefore, a change toward providing additional opportunities for hunters and encouraging them to assist SOB in managing its wildlife will be needed.
Furthermore, in terms of the economic potential of SPB, one must mention that it can be used as an agricultural area, which is likely to produce a significant economic profit. A part of the financial resources that will be obtained in the course of managing the SPB lands will be used to sustain the wildlife and create the setting in which endangered species will be protected ad unique habitats will be restored and kept intact. Moreover, as previous examples have shown, economic activities in the SPB setting have proven to produce a positive impact on the environment, in general. Moreover, the arrangement of climate-related events and these of social media to build awareness among NC residents should be seen as critical steps toward the management of the current situation.
Among the key problems of the current policies, one should also address the concern regarding the promotion of sustainable use of resources. On the one hand, the present-day environmental trends in the policy toward environmentalism can be regarded as sympathetic toward the problems of resource allocation. Indeed, the problem of poaching and hunting wildlife has been the reason for continuous concern are SPB, and the current policies are aimed directly at presenting the specified issue. However, scrutinizing the issue closer, one will realize that local authorities overlook some of the economic implications of their choices.
Specifically, the fact that wildlife hunting will not only provide the tools for controlling wildlife population but also introduce an opportunity for numerous job options in the area is also overlooked at present. Indeed, with the change in the current regulations and the provision of opportunities for controlling the population of invasive species by offering people hunting options, one will make a significant difference in the economic situation. Particularly, job opportunities associated with consultations regarding hunting and the associated services will be provided.
Therefore, it is highly recommended to shape the current policies regarding hunting in the SPB wildlife setting so that hunters could assist in controlling the population of invasive species in the identified setting. The proposed steps will help retain the target environment sustainable and self-sufficient. It should be noted that the proposed changes will not imply the refutation of the current code of conduct in the SPB.
For instance, hunters will have to remain respectful toward the SPB code of conduct and ensure that they do not harm the environment in any way. Specifically, the people that will be given the permission to hunt invasive species in the area of SPB will be encouraged not to litter or smoke, as well as to reduce their impact on the well-being of the habitat and the species that live in it.
Conclusions
Despite years of endeavors at addressing the problem of habitat change and wildlife extinction, SOB is facing the same threat of its numerous species going extinct. While a range of environmental programs have been designed to help to sustain the existing environmental setting and support the species that are facing the threat of extinction, SPB remains under a critical threat. Therefore, the reconsideration of the existing policies toward hunting wildlife will need to occur with the following changes to the existing policies. Specifically, hunters will have to be instructed about targeting particular species that affect the SPB environment negatively due to the abnormal rise in their population.
Thus, species control will be introduced into the specified setting with the following improvement in the environmentalism levels and the overall positive change in the current situation regarding wildlife poaching and species extinction. The regulations that allow hunting a selected set of species based on the current status of wildlife in the SPB environment will require admittedly challenging changes. However, by fostering the concept of sustainability, environmental friendliness, and a critical analysis as the basis for decision-making, one will encourage a positive change.
Bibliography
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Gray Wolf.” 2014. CA.gov. Web.
Dinets, Vladimir. 2015. Peterson Field Guide to Finding Mammals in North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kays, Roland, Parsons, Arielle W., Baker, Megan C., Kalies, Elizabeth L., Forrester, Tavis, Costello, Robert, Rota, Christopher T., et al. 2017. “Does Hunting or Hiking Affect Wildlife Communities in Protected Areas?” Journal of Applied Ecology 54 (1): 242-252.
Peterson, M. Nils, and Michael Paul Nelson. 2017. “Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Is Problematic for Modern Wildlife Management.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22 (1): 43-54.
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 2018. “2018 -2019 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations.” FWS.gov. Web.
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Climate Adaptation Plan.” 2016. ECOS.FWS.gov. Web.
Serenari, Christopher, and M. Nils Peterson. 2018. “Evaluating the Cultural Fit of Hunting and Angling Among Minority Sportspersons in North Carolina.” Leisure Sciences 1 (1): 1-14.
Schaul, Jordan Carlton. 2014. “Conserving Wildlife Through Responsible Tourism: An Interview with Dr. Michael Hutchins.” National Geographic. Web.
Southern Highlands Reserve. 2018. “German Forestry Society Visits Red Spruce Restoration Site.” SouthernHighlandsReserve.org. Web.
For many centuries, gathering and collecting have been among the most rudimental ways of obtaining food for local communities worldwide. To augment their diets, many societies engage in hunting wild animals. Governments and conservationists in many states have outlawed the tradition, thus denying the people their livelihood: killing animals for food and commercial purposes which has led to their impoverishment. Basing their argument against the backdrop of financial losses, the organizations have failed to capture the multidimensional benefits that accrue to the people from coursing and trapping wild animals (Strong & Silva, 2020). Besides, they miss the major reasons why those located near the parks hunt. Conversely, the reasons include sourcing for household meat, managing the conflict between animals and human beings, and generating income for the latter’s families. Conversely, the local communities argue that the bodies against poaching care for animals while they disregard people (Strong & Silva, 2020). This paper highlights the article’s credibility by proving that the authors carried out research and shows its usefulness to readers and policymakers through various cases on the impacts of hunting prohibitions among the communities.
The credibility of the Article
The article was not only published in a biological conservation journal, but also by academicians. Besides, the authors have carried out research to support their assertions. For example, they have utilized various approaches to understand the underlying challenges of the ban on hunting. The analysis of interviews conducted in South Africa where 435 respondents from three areas surrounding the protected regions participated prove how the prohibitions have impoverished the people (Strong & Silva, 2020). Also, the scholars have utilized the capability approach proposed by Amartya Sen to understand the impact of the ban as highlighted in the article. Moreover, studies done in Namibia and Mozambique where the state and the private sector carried out similar conservation policies make the article credible (Strong & Silva, 2020). Further, the article contradicts early findings on poaching in Namibia. It shows the link between anti-hunting costs and conservancy perception (Strong & Silva, 2020). As such, the aforementioned examples show the credibility of the article.
The Usefulness of the Article
This information is useful since it highlights issues that other researchers have not discussed through the introduction of a different view. Unlike previous works that supported the prohibition of hunting without considering its impact on the local communities, as proposed by conservationists, the article highlights how anti-poaching laws undermine such initiatives and diminish their viability. For example, respondents from South Africa and Mozambique revealed that hunters are arrested in both countries, and some are killed (Strong & Silva, 2020). The article suggests the analysis of local ideas on Illegal Wildlife Hunting (IWH) to find common ground between the social construction, which is about poverty and biological conservation. This will reveal the origin of the animosity between the local communities and the agencies that ban hunting.
Conclusion
In summation, this article has highlighted home consumption, revenue, and human-wildlife conflict management as the main reasons for hunting by local communities. In addition, by publishing the article in a scholarly journal and carrying out thorough research, the authors have made the information credible. Lastly, it is useful for policymakers and conservationists to understand the origin of conflicts and provide viable solutions to reduce tensions between concerned groups.
Reference
Strong, M., & Silva, J. A. (2020). Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional wellbeing. Biological Conservation, 243, 108451. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108451
Hunting and gathering was one of the ancient practices in human history. The society regarded hunting and gathering as a form of hobby, trade or simplify as a method of obtaining food. Hunting and gathering was widespread especially in densely populated forests because these areas were inhabited with animals and wild fruits. However, the trend of hunting and gathering has changed in present times (Hummel, 72). Perhaps it can be attributed to people’s evolving lifestyles.
This paper explores how hunting has transformed from native years to present. It explores in details whether the practice has become more of a game or simply a sporting activity.
How Hunting and Gathering Has Changed From Its Native Years
According to Maisels (76), early man was likely to be a scavenger than a hunter. He could feed on the remains of animals which died of natural causes or killed by predators. Over 500,000 years, hunting and gathering, was the only means of survival for the early man. The hunter–gatherer communities were forced to be always on the move since some areas produced foods seasonally due to variations in climatic patterns.
Natural rocks and trees provided them with shelter. For more than 80,000 years ago, revolution started to take place and early man invented old age tools such as; the bone harpoons, fishing nets and hooks (Maisels, 86).
Besides these tools simplifying work of obtaining food, they aided in promoting sporting activities. Men were primarily hunters while women were gatherers in most communities but in some communities, women also allowed to hunted.
These communities lived in clusters based on their tribes and kinship. They adopted a democratic and non-hierarchical system of governance. In addition, shared and exchanged resources besides creating space for leisure activities as affirmed by Maisels (124).
Agricultural practices were implemented 10,000 years ago, and it has since played a vital role in the replacement of hunting and the gathering as a way of livelihood. However, some communities have not adopted it in entirety as some communities are still hunters and gatherers (Maisels, 127).
The continued demand for land for agricultural practices led to the integration of more hunter-gatherers communities to the innovative agricultural measures.
The communities which were not able to adapt were forced to flee the scene. The hunter-gatherer communities uprooted any plant deemed inappropriate for their consumption to create space for the growth of consumable plants and shelter for wildlife.
In the modern society, hunting and gathering is still practiced by agriculturalists for instance, hunting is carried out during the winter season (Maisels, 133).
Evolution of Hunting and Gathering Methods
Sharp stones
Early man used sharp stones for hunting and with the development of new hunting strategies, man invented new tools for hunting such as the arrows, bows and spears which simplified hunting for fast-moving and wild animals (Maisels, 152).
Animals
The dogs were domesticated and used for persistence hunting. They were good in aspects fit for hunting such as; good sense of scent and sight. They could intelligently flush out the target from its hiding place and pace in order to hold it. They were also used since they are able to attack and kill some dangerous and difficult to trap animals.
In India, the elephants were used to pursue the extremely dangerous animals such as the tigers due to their large sizes (Maisels, 154). The horses were also used in the UK due to their ability to run fast. The elites used the war chariots to hunt lions.
Gun Powders and Rifles
These tools were commonly used when hunting bigger animals which were perceived, as threatening. The rifles and gun powders were and still are used to kill and net predators such as lions and tigers which are regarded as man-eating beasts (Maisels, 170). With the use of gun powder, safety and health regulations have to be adhered because of environmental hazards.
Hunting and Gathering, Sport or Game?
In ancient times, hunting was seen as a sport for the rich and famous. According to Hummel (95), hunting was encouraged as relaxations to facilitate the elites in the society develop their fighting skills. In our modern times, hunting and gathering, has evolved thus it is more of a sport than a game.
Some governments for example, countries in Eastern Africa region, have established laws which simplify this sport (Hummel, 102). For example, governments allow a specific season whereby animals such as; Axis Deer, Blackbuck, Nilgal and fallow Deer are hunted.
However, laws and regulations limiting hunting have also been affected. This is to curb illegal hunting and to control and protect endangered species such as Rhinos and wild birds. These laws have been affected through bans on specific species of animals and control of hunting seasons (Hummel, 121).
Nevertheless, the dog has still remained an accomplished animal during sport hunting. This is due to its persistence hunting techniques and skills. Moreover, Tourism has contributed to modernity of hunting sports. As a form of relaxation, they visits game reserves and game parks and participate in hunting.
Bird shooting has also attracted many enthusiasts. This has made countries such as the UK to come up with strategies of breeding “species of bird” specifically for hunting sports. Also, In the United States, government has taken initiatives to streamline the sport (Hummel, 124).
This has been through purchasing of land and providing hunting training to lovers of this sport. Consequently, the US government has authorized hunting of some animals because they have been perceived as pests. According to Hummel (128), computers have also endeavored in modernizing hunting sport; this has been through the use of a webcam and guns which are remotely controlled to shoot at imagined animals.
Conclusion
Hunting and gathering has established a new sporting culture in our modern times. Traditionally, gathering was mainly centered towards food sustenance. However, the culture has transformed gradually thus breeding gardening as a form of hobby.
Similarly, Hunting was designed to provide enough food for families. Over the centuries, the culture has shifted thus leading to leisurely sports such as game shooting, filming among others. Hence hunting and gathering has become more of a sport than a game.
Works Cited
Hummel, Richard L. Hunting and Fishing For Sport: Commerce, Controversy, Popular Culture, Wisconsin, Popular Press, 1994.
Maisels, Charles Keith. The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering To Agriculture, Cities, And The State In The Near East, New York, Routledge, 1993.
It wasn’t my first time out hunting the wild boars that wander seemingly aimlessly through the East Texas forests in search of food, but I hadn’t been out in a while either. I had my bow in one hand and a camera in the other, ready to catch the elusive Tiger Boar that everyone had been talking about.
The camera helped me remember my own timeline – I am a modern hunter, in the 21st century, just miles from a bustling city with lights and cars and TV screens, not a primeval Indian stalking his prey to bring it back to my teepee as necessary food for my tribe. You’d be surprised how easy that is to forget, even when you’re wearing snakeskin cowboy boots, modern Wranglers and a T-shirt with a Dickies logo splattered across the chest (my more modern camis were in the laundry). Not even the high technology of my Guardian bow could shake the feeling that I had stepped back in time to an earlier, purer form of procuring a living.
Because I didn’t have any of the important sprays or treatments to get rid of my human scent, I took some time to try to block my scent with more natural odors before I got too far away from the house. Not the most pleasant experience in the world, rubbing mud and whatever other kind of natural goo I could find in various strategic spots on my body, but I did the best I could and then set off, by a roundabout route, for the tripod I knew was waiting for me.
After tramping through the woods for an hour and getting lost twice, I finally found the tripod just barely visible to someone who knew what they were looking for. It was in a good location, overlooking the crossing points of two paths and on the way down to a nearby watering hole. It had been a relatively wet summer by Texas standards, so the watering hole was nice and full and enticingly cool to someone who’d just spent an hour tramping through the woods, but I resisted the temptation and climbed up onto the tripod to settle in and wait for some action.
My previous experiences with hunting had taught me that it was mostly a long day of waiting with a short spurt, maybe two, of some action, so I was prepared to just sit and watch the day go by. That was not to be the case today, though.
Almost before I got settled, I heard the first of them. There were soft grunts coming from just in front of me. When I looked down into the brush to my right, I could see several animals jogging along the trail toward the river. Their position prevented me from taking a shot as I realized, a little too late, that the tree must have grown since the tripod had been erected. Several branches blocked my line of fire at several angles. Instead of the wide range I had expected, I was left with only a small window almost exactly where the trails met. I would either have to wait for the hogs to reach the junction or I would have to move my position – and the hogs were moving away from the junction.
I could take pictures through the leaves, though, so I reached out for my camera, which I had hung on a small branch nearby. The motion produced a reaction I hadn’t expected.
From directly below me, I heard a sudden crashing in the brush, the tripod rocked and I was suddenly grabbing for balance. A deep-throated grunt sounded directly beneath me and the other hogs began squealing and crashing through the brush on the other side of the trail, heading directly away from the watering hole and scattering into the dense undergrowth. Meanwhile, my arms were still pinwheeling, trying to keep myself from falling off the still rocking tripod.
If I fell, I knew I’d be easy prey for the male hog directly under my feet. He must have gotten himself tangled in the vines underneath because he kept squealing and thrashing around down there, continuing to hit the leg of the tripod and giving me a glimpse of a large black hide every time I wobbled over the edge. My bow dropped from my hand to land right next to the boar, who immediately began stamping on it, attempting to gore it and generally destroying it as completely as he could. If I fell, I knew I’d be dead.
The animal kept getting angrier by the second. Somehow I had to get him to leave but I wasn’t sure what would interrupt an enraged boar in the throes of his passion except an arrow to the heart. But all my arrows were useless without the bow he was systematically tearing to pieces on the ground. The only tool I had left at my disposal was the camera I still somehow held in my hand and I didn’t see how that was going to be of any significant use.
On my hands and knees for better balance on the rocking tripod, I looked down at the camera and saw the lens and flash bulb looking back at me. Something kept me drawn to that image and then I finally realized. About the only thing that would frighten an enraged boar was fire. Since I didn’t have any fire, perhaps the flash of the camera’s light bulb would be enough strangeness to encourage the boar to leave.
I made the necessary adjustments on the camera with a shaking hand that I couldn’t be sure was the result of the tripod’s movement, carefully flattened myself on the top of the tripod to distribute my weight and hopefully not send it toppling over and began snapping pictures as quickly as I could. With each flash, the camera made a high pitched winding noise as the electronic devices inside prepared for another flash. Sure enough, this proved too much strangeness for the hog and, with a final snort and a last jump on the thoroughly broken bow, he trotted off into the woods.
It took me a while to get down off the tripod. Even after I stopped shaking, I still counted to 100 slowly to be sure he was gone and then made my way to the ground. Still rattled, I picked up the pieces of my bow and started the long walk back to the house. It was strange, this was the shortest and most expensive hunting trip I’d made in my life (the cost of replacing that bow was going to take me all summer to make up) and I was returning with nothing (even the pictures I’d snapped turned out to be nothing more than a confusing blur of green bush and black shadow which may or may not have been the boar), but it was the most exciting trip I’d ever had.