Fines For Illegal Hunting example essay topic

"The killing game " Before reading "The killing game" by Joy Williams, I considered myself a "non-hunter". However, after reading "The killing game", I had mixed feelings of how I felt about hunting. I think Williams unjustly stereotyped all hunters as being "immoral" without consideration for another point of view. I decided to look equally at both sides of this issue to determine which side, "non-hunter" or "anti-hunter", I would support.

I interviewed my friend, Dona Mayo, about hunting. I believed that she would know about hunting since she had hunted in the past and her father is an active hunter. She considers herself to be a "non-hunter" now but does support the rights of a limited amount of hunting for appropriate reasons. Her family always takes home and eats all the animals they kill. Any left over meat is donated to church or given to other families. Every edible part of the animal is eaten.

The head is kept as a trophy if it has a good rack. They prefer to hunt deer, turkey and squirrel. At one point, in 1985 lots of people were laid off from work. They had to rely on hunting to supply them with meat when they could no longer afford to buy any. She did have a friend of hers that was involved in a hunting related accident. His name was Chris, when he was thirteen he had accidentally shot and killed his father by laying a gun that had a bullet lodged in the rifle while climbing a fence.

It is illegal to hunt in state parks in Mississippi. Taxpayers pay extra for license to hunt in preserves, and the money hunters pay go towards the parks. She believes hunting illegally in parks should have license revoked, and pay fines and / or jail time. I finally asked Ms. Mayo how she felt of the comment from "The killing game"; "Sport hunting is immoral; it should be made illegal.

Hunters are persecutors of nature who should be prosecuted". She responded, "It is not her position to judge what is moral or immoral. I think sport hunting should be limited, if not using the meat you kill to eat. People who think that hunting is immoral must have not been in a situation where hunting provided their main source of food". After interviewing Ms. Mayo, I decided to go online and find out the rules, regulations, and even the fines for illegal hunting. According to Mississippi deer hunting. com "Anyone twelve years of age and under sixteen years of age must have a certificate of satisfactory completion of a hunter education course approved by the department before hunting in the state.

Anyone under the age of twelve must be in the presence and under the direct supervision of a licensed or exempt hunter at least twenty-one years of age when the child is hunting. A legal buck is a deer with antlers of four points or greater. Legal shooting hours are from one half hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset. It is illegal to hunt or trap any wild animal or wild bird with the aid of bait. Electrically operated calling or sound reproducing devices may be used for hunting coyote or crow only. Dogs are not allowed for hunting deer.

All deer hunters must wear, in full view, a minimum of 500 square inches of solid unbroken continuous daylight fluorescent hunter orange material during open gun seasons on deer. If a person is convicted of killing any deer with any lighting device is subject to a maximum fine of $5,000, five days in jail, and loss of hunting, fishing, and trapping privileges for three years". After reading the essay, interviewing, and going to an online source, I have come to a conclusion on how I feel about the hunting controversy. I still consider myself a "non-hunter". Although I find the thought of hunting for sport or pleasure to be repugnant, I do believe that Williams stereotyped all hunters as being immoral by wasting animals, hunting illegally, and hunting for trophies only.

Even though there are such hunters who hunt for fun and not food, it is wrong to group everyone into one category and judge them all. That would be like making the statement that "all poor people are lazy", which is equally untrue as saying "all hunters are immoral". It is human nature to judge people and use our personal criteria for making our decisions, so I do not blame Williams for judging hunters as being immoral. However, I do believe that she should have been more open minded and took time to examine, or at least mention, the possibility that some hunters perhaps hunt out of necessity to feed their families and not for joy or personal satisfaction from slaughtering a defenseless animal. Williams mentioned accidents that can happen when hunting and described an incident where a hunter was killed while taking "a dump". That particular person was not wearing the required 500 square inches of orange material.

I am sure that some hunters do get "trigger-happy", but that is the risk you take when you engage in an activity that uses a deadly weapon. One would think that Williams would have thought that the fate of this particular hunter was ironic poetic justice; perhaps he got what he deserved. Even though my view on hunting have not changed, Williams did open my mind to some facts that I agree need to be changed. For instance, I think that some of the punishment for illegal hunting should be a lot more severe. I do not agree with my friend in all respects either because I do believe that sport hunting should be illegal.

At the same time I do believe that certain hunters should have the right to support their families with the meat they killed themselves if it is necessary. After all, our ancestors engaged in hunting to support themselves from the time of hunter-gatherer societies. The animals that have been hunted are in fact part of the food chain. At the same time humans, like it or not, are an apex predator, and will kill if necessary for their survival.