struttinhoyt Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 I'm finishing up my summer semester at the moment. In which case I have an Argumentive Research Paper to do in my Comp 2 class.... I'm doing it over why the hunting of deer should be kept legal, and what type of an impact we as hunters do for the community. Such as what the rapid increase in population of whitetails would do, Such as Crop damage, Wrecks involving Deer, and the possible spread of Lyme's disease..... If anyone has any ideas upon what also could be stressed that I have missed it would be highly appreciative... I want to get the word out there to possibly make a change in the way others look at what we all love to do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach1 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 In more urban areas deer can damage people's landscaping by eating the plants, but that could kinda go along with crop damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerforged Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Don't forget to mention the detriment to the Deer themselves as starvation sets in due to too large a deer population versus feed and habitat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born4it Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Don't forget to mention the detriment to the Deer themselves as starvation sets in due to too large a deer population versus feed and habitat. Very much so. Along with this, the deer would probably, eventually, become more aggressive as the food became more and more limited. When animals get aggressive, nobody appreciates it Another thing you could talk about is hunters being the first conservationists, and that hunters and outdoorsmen are the ones who preserve the land and everything natural. If there weren't hunting seasons, there wouldn't be hunters, people wouldn't take care of the land as much as we do now, and the quality of the earth would suffer! I've done a few papers about hunting, deer, and other such things. Please let us know how it goes and post a copy of it if you can! Take care, Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widowmaker Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Thats awesome! I did the same speech when I was in college, but I used it as a persuasive speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clrj3514 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 i would talk about how much hunters contribute to funding organizations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Unregulated deer numbers lead to an increase in deer/vehicle collisions. There are typically around 200 human fatalities caused by deer annually, 29,000 injuries, and about $1 billion in vehicle damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struttinhoyt Posted August 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Bump.... Thanks for the input.... anything else anyone can think of... Seeing as how it is an argumentive essay... I do have to have some type of conflict... anyone got anything that P.E.T.A or any other anti hunting groups make any type of a point that isn't completly insane... I by no means could think of taking anything P.E.T.A. has to say to heart.... Just have to express some of there emotion to it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach1 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 anyone got anything that P.E.T.A or any other anti hunting groups make any type of a point that isn't completly insane... They make arguments that aren't insane?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierbuck Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Okay, a couple thoughts on one side: Excessive deer populations increase deer interaction spreading disease faster and more thoroughly through a population. Also over-browsing can completely change an ecosystem where no ground foliage survives. This is the situation that has prompted biologists to encourage deer hunting in Indiana State Parks. Hunters brign in huge amounts of money to destination states and regions, and fund DNR divisions, etc. The other financial impact of hunting is that hunting dollars buy up habitat and preserve it undeveloped which is a huge benefit to game and non-game species alike. The most significant threat to wildlife is habitat loss. On the other side, arguments have been made that humans should quit meddling in the balance of nature. First we killed off the predators, then we kill the prey because there are no predators to keep them in check. The staunch supporters of this side say that yes, there probably will be a big die off, but then the population will stabilize and we will just have to deal with the collisions and landscape/habitat destruction. That's our punishment for interjecting ourselves into this equation in the first place. Whatever happens is nature and we should let it run its course. Of course these positions fail on many counts, but I have always thought a logical argument based on a flawed premise was a nice little novelty. Can you tell what I do for a living without looking at my profile? HB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.