Should animal hunting be illegal?

Hello ladies and gentlemen today I will begin my argument by making you aware of the extent of hunting we will make legal. With are argument I want to make sure that we are all clear that we are legalising seasonal hunting with specific predators not at risk of extinction the amount and some other limitations.

Were always being told we don't need it, and we can live without it. Well nothing could be further from reality. Despite claims from organizations like PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals), I will explain to you why we need hunting in the World today why it is not a want but a necessity. Firstly, there is overpopulation with many animals. In the wilderness, the problem of animal overpopulation is not resolved by predators. Predators tend to look for signs of health in their prey.This has the side effects of ensuring a small stock among the survivors, and endangering the prey. Preditators devour the healthy,Fat preys, left with the sick animals which when hunting season dies off in the winter through illness and starvation they will die
A fact is that for every animal that gets killed in hunting season, 3 more animal lives will be saved in the winter. So therefore, hunting is good for all animals, and to ban hunting will kill more animals. So I will save my opponents saying that it kills animals if anything it saves animals.

My case is very simple.

1. There is overpopulation with many animals.
2. A fact is that for every animal that gets killed in hunting season, 3 more animal lives will be saved in the winter.

Ladies and gentlemen, from these two premises, which my opponent offered and I concede to the fullest extent, we should indeed make hunting illegal. My opponent attempts to appeal to your emotions by telling you that hunting saves animals, but this is not a good thing. As my opponent stated, there is chronic overpopulation in many animals that is not kept in check by predators. Rather than saving animals [by hunting], we do our part for the animal overpopulation issue and forego saving them.

A Proven fact is there is a corrolation between game harvest and flu cases. The more game that gets harvest in a certain area, the fewer flu cases that there are in that area. That is a proven fact. Even PETA cannot explain why this is only to say that it is a coincidence(Which is some coincidence). You may ask why hunting controls the flu cases? Simple, since animals are being killed off by diseases, which humans can also contract, which will kill off humans as well. So Hunting is good for humans.

Like the situation with Heggins Pennsylvania, with the pigeon shoots, many area's are overpopulated with pigeons, so people trap them, send them to Heggins, and shoot them. What else are you going to do with them, if you send them to the wild, they will return to another city of town, and cause the same problems. Which was the main reason for the pigeon shootings.The opponents may state that an excuse is that
hunting is a tradition and how traditions change with changing values. Slavery was once
an accepted trade, but it was abolished because it was cruel, even though it generated
jobs and riches to the white upper class. Further more there is no reason why hunting should not be
abolished as well, for exactly the same reason. But hunting is a different thing altogether hunting saves endangered animals it does not create a divide in the society for the upper class everyone who wants can and will hunt it saves animals and as I stated above for every 1 animal that gets killed 3 more animals will live which is saving lives.
Another reason, overpopulated of many animals, has resulted in many bear and Mountain Lion attacks. PREDATOR ON WEAKER SPECIES
The number of attacks is on the increase. Which many people were seriously injured or killed by such attacks. Also the number of Farm animals, and pets have been killed by such wild animals. Never the less commercial farms, have lost crops, because of wild animals. So reality, to ban hunting would only hurt the economy. In addition
there have been a countless amount of cases where animals have actually broken into many people's homes, and did considerable amount of damage. furthermore the number of Auto accidents, cause by animals. People hitting with the cars or serving to missed, has actually injured and killed people. Even at 20 mph, can be deadly.

My opponent does not address my argument, but rather makes another argument for her side.

My opponent claims that hunting animals reduces cases of the Flu. Are we to take her word for this? Show me a study, for which a statistically significant decrease in flu cases was found to be caused by hunting. If my opponent cannot produce such a study, then she's simply pulled this data out of thin air, and it has no weight in this debate.

Next, my opponent goes on to say that hunting saves the lives of animals - for every 1 animal we kill hunting, we save 3. However, as my opponent and I both pointed out last round, this planet has enough animals as is! Animals create greenhouse gases, take up space that could be put to better use, eat plants [further increasing CO2 levels], and generally aren't helpful to society in any way.
Animals are OVER populated, therefore we should not be hunting, since hunting saves 3 animals' lives for every animal you kill.

animals are not over populated many are at risk of extiction
Further more into my argument when one purchases a chicken breast, t-bone, or other animal product at the grocery store and eat it, one can do so in complete ignorance of how that animal lived or died. A hunter knows exactly what it is like to take the life of what they consume. While there may be a few hunters who really enjoy killing, just for the sake of it, I think most have a deeper sense of the food chain and what goes into the food we eat than most of us. So it is not wrong it is as they say free ranged in ther natural habitants .Even the royals hunt.

Last week when the debate topic was raised should animal hunting be legal I heard from one of the strong opinionated audience remark ‘im against REAL fur'and I pose this question is it not more humane to hunt an animal and use its fur because if it dies in winter it will just have to go to waste. Mink, fox and rabbit pelts and skins now form the basis of a market worth £500 million every year. Colleen was walking down Oxford Street and wore a fur coat and with people against this described her as carrying dead skin on her back but People wear things made from dead animals on their feet, and most people eat dead animals what is the real difference? This is the same as battery hens specific animals are bred for there fur hunting leaves the animal to live a happy life moreover I pose again is it not more humane to leave an animal to live a happy life and then when it comes to the end of its life to hunt and to use the fur ?

I hear the opponents may state that animal hunting is a waste of the animal as we will not eat it. With some animals that is not the case because rabbits will be eaten if some animals are not eaten there is constantly a option that they can have the animal preserved and put up as an embellishment…..I hear you ask who does this ? Well a lot of people around the World preserve animals they kill
Hunting resonable should be legal

Lord Willoughby de Broke
"The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, 'Fox hunting is cruel and I therefore want it banned.' He went on to discuss the option of controlling foxes by shooting with a rifle. He suggested that that method was preferred in the Burns report. However, nowhere in that report, so far as I can see, does any conclusion suggest that fox hunting is cruel. I defy the noble Lord to find a reference in the Burns report that says that fox hunting is cruel. It does not say that anywhere. Therefore, the only conclusion to draw is that fox hunting is not cruel."

The Lord Bishop of Hereford
There is no National Health Service for foxes. There are no retirement homes for elderly foxes. There are no analgesics for ill or injured foxes. The natural world is not a kindly place. Foxes are not kindly in their ways, if and when they gain access to the hen-house

I still hold my two main premises.

Animals are, overall, overpopulated.
Hunting saves animals.

My opponent now brings up the point that some species are endangered. This is what we like to call natural selection at work. Why should we keep around a species that can't even survive on its own? We shouldn't. Its bad genes SHOULD die.

Therefore, since hunting saves endangered species, that is yet one more disservice we are doing to the world.

My opponent also makes the point that most people who eat meat don't appreciate the food chain. This is irrelevant. We have no need to appreciate every insignificant aspect of our meals. Most people don't appreciate the protein complexity, either. And yet, most people should not become chemists.

It's completely fine to not appreciate the food chain and what it's like to kill an animal. My opponent gives no reason why this is necessary.

Also, extend my arguments about animals contributing to greenhouse gases and taking up space that could be better used. Along with the premise that hunting saves more animals' lives than it ends.

And with that, it's off to the voters.