The claim is to prove that people who want to hunt need a restriction which should come from the state. Since the mists of time, human beings have been hunting. At the beginning, it was necessary to survive, to eat and to feed one's family. Nowadays, things have changed and to speak about hunting, we have to consider a lot of elements such as the individual rights and the animal rights. In this argumentative essay, we will speak about the second element i.e. the individual right to hunt. Indeed, there are laws everywhere which are restricting the right to hunt. That's why we will try to understand why these laws exist and what is their impact on the individual right to hunt. Somewhere in the world, people need to hunt and to fish. Indeed, in Africa and South America for example hunt allows them to trade, to eat, to live. It is more often true for developing countries because the natural resources are more important and it is sometimes the only way to earn money. For example, the Inuit need to hunt seal because it is the only resource they can find in the polar circle.
[...] A stricter control would allow these animals to survive and not to disappear. To conclude this part, we can say for sure that the right to hunt needs to be restricted because there are too many elements which have to be taken into consideration. With no regulation or law, it would not go well for our nature, our future and the health of our world which is kind of collapsing for so many reasons currently. Conclusion The individual right to hunt is a vast topic. [...]
[...] Today there are 30% less hunters than in 1970 (in France). Nowadays, hunting seems obsolete and the new generation is less interested in it. Since the number of hunters is decreasing, we are actually loosing a part of our heritage. By restricting the individual right to hunt, the state will lead on the collapse of hunting. Currently, our world is becoming sterile, there is no authenticity anymore and hunting reminds us where we come from, how we used to feed ourselves. It can seem old- fashioned but it is true. [...]
[...] An other important fact that claims to restrict the right to hunt is the sharing of the natural space. Indeed, Sunday's walkers should not be scared of being shouted while they are picking up some mushrooms or shells. Nevertheless it happens in national forests and seafront. Restrictions are not good enough and there are so much places to hunt worldwide and in each country that it is for possible to deal with this problem. By the way, the right to hunt has to be restricted to give time to the animals for breeding. [...]
[...] In France, there are on average 28 dead a year because of hunting accidents whereas the hunting license is one of the most difficult to get in Europe. The security is the main theme of the tests and it gets harder and harder every year. But in spite of it, there are still accidents. It is important to know that a bullet can go straight four kilometers away from the shooter. That's why if the firing is pointed in a wrong direction it is very dangerous. [...]
[...] The restriction which is linked to is, in my opinion, a good thing because it is needed. Since it involves the environment, we have to take care of it. By taking care it means introduce laws, quotas and period to make it sound and ethic. By the way there are currently a lot of restrictions and limits on hunt. But it is not a good idea to try to rid it because of all the reasons state below. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
