U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020, August 18). Secretary Bernhardt Announces Historic Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on Public Lands. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=secretary-bernhardt-announces-historic-expansion-of-hunting-and-fishing-&_ID=36755
The Department of the Interior announced the greatest expansion of accessible land for hunting and fishing in its history last month. It included 850 new hunting and fishing opportunities on 2.3 million new acres of public land. The change comes amid a trend of “increased access” among the executive agencies responsible for public land policy as directed by President Trump to his political appointees. The article praises the administration’s conservation efforts and deregulation to facilitate more outdoor activities and economic growth. It explains the economic advantages of hunting, including the excise tax which goes to fund conservation efforts.
While the article only focuses on the positives of the new plan (the website is run by the Fish and Wildlife Service), there are certain drawbacks. Such a large increase in hunting and fishing has the potential to disrupt ecosystems and the food chain. Without proper regulation, the ability to exploit wildlife for personal gain will increase, which could result in a tragedy of the commons situation. Furthermore, the language the Secretary of the Interior used in his speech announcing the decision seemed much more idealistic than logic-driven. While I do see some merit behind the idea of higher revenues from the excise tax to fund environmental and conservation efforts, it doesn’t matter too much if wildlife is eventually harmed to the extent that there’s little left to conserve. While I don’t think the reality will be a doomsday scenario, there is a concern that the regulation of hunting and fishing will not be adequate.
I agree with how the article is only praising the benefits, although there are many downsides here. I like how you brought this idea up to disagree with the article. With an increase in hunting and fishing, it not only will disrupt the ecosystem and food chain like you said, but it can also cause a tragedy of the commons if they are to over hunt and fish with no proper regulation. That being said, they need to put regulations for hunting and fishing to keep the animals and ecosystem safe.
I agree that the drawbacks you described here outweigh any benefit that this new expansion could have. If hunting and fishing is suddenly being allowed with little regulation on this newly public land, no doubt there will be many people who have long fought for the public use of this land jumping at an opportunity to hunt and fish, which could easily abuse the freedom and cause the exploitation of many species. Furthermore, by allowing this expansion, it will be more difficult for people to understand the importance of protection of the land’s natural ecosystem’s because this change gives increasingly less value to the well-being of the environment as it’s focus is solely on revenue.
I agree with all the points you said. I feel as though these people are not thinking about how this may affect the environment in the long run. How as you said if remained unchecked and without regulation will begin a downfall. I also feel as though there are definitely some people, although I’d like to give the benefit of the doubt, who are cheering this and supporting it mainly because it benefits them greatly as well as the environment to a certain extent. I think that for some of the people who are supporting this, if this were a different scenario and it was only benefiting the environment and not us, then they would be less thrilled about it. A question that I have is that since there is a concern about the regulation of the hunting and fishing not being up to par, what system would you come up with that you think would do a good job of keeping everyone in check while also not upsetting everyone?
I agree that from the description of the article it seems to be rather one-sided in its a discussion of the issue at hand. I believe that your statement about why the website is so one-sided is entirely accurate and a good reason that it was written in the way it was. I completely agree with the idea that it is rather important to conserve wildlife and that the drawbacks of hunting and fishing seem to outweigh the positives.
Thank you readers. The points you have all made are very interesting and insightful. As for the question posed, I honestly can’t give you an answer that wouldn’t be BS because I really don’t know enough about hunting regulations. However, I think there is some optimal point between allowing people to hunt and protecting the environment.