You are on page 1of 6

Phillips 1

Molly Phillips
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
25 October 2016
Hunting for Answers
Inquiry: Does hunting have a positive or negative effect on the natural environment?
Thesis: Although various types of hunting have certain positive environmental impacts, it is
undisputed, however, that hunting causes negative consequences burdened upon the
environment. These include: lead contamination in wetlands, negative animal behavioral
patterns, and indirect vegetation decline.

Commented [PA1]: Yikes, I did not expect all of these


Intro: Since the dawn of time man has been hunting and using animals as a natural resource, but

Commented [PA2]: Try to avoid these kind of overly

generalized statements that you can't really substantiate.
"since the dawn of time" is quite the sweeping statement.
For example, there have certainly been cultures that dont
eat animals. When was the dawn of time? Its just too much.

recently hunting animals has shown an impact on the environment. Some affected areas include
animal population and behavior, and surrounding vegetation. While hunting serves as a food

Commented [PA3]: When is recently?

source for many, modern day hunting tactics cause stress on the environment.

Bengsen, Andrew J., and Jessica Sparkes. "Can Recreational Hunting Contribute to Pest
Mammal Control on Public Land in Australia?" Mammal Review 46.4 (2016): 297-310.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Bengsen and Sparkes conducted a study to analyze how effective recreational hunting is
at controlling certain mammal populations in Australia. By listing many factors that also
affect the mammal population in Australia, the authors are contributing to their ethos.
They are acknowledging as many aspects of this experiment as possible instead of

Commented [PA4]: Italicize your major titles.

Phillips 2
focusing on a bias. The conclusion is inconclusive. Bengsen writes, there is little
direct evidence to support or disprove the argument that recreational huntingprovides a

Commented [PA5]: Good observation.

Commented [PA6]: Read this out loud.

useful pest animal control tool (304). This specific study weakens the claim of
hunting as a population control. However, the authors do discuss that it may be different
in other regions of the world. This does help my argument that hunting has more of a

Commented [PA7]: Interesting.

negative impact than a positive environmental impact.

Bianchi, N., S. Fortino, C. Leonzio, and S. Ancora. "Ecotoxicological Study on Lead Shot from
Hunting in the Padule Di Fucecchio Marsh (Tuscany, Italy)." Chemistry & Ecology 27
(2011): 153-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

A study was performed to see how much lead contamination was in Italian wetlands due
to hunting waterfowl using lead pellets. It was found that there were significant amounts
of lead in the soil and water in the hunted areas. In return, the wildlife, both aquatic and
on land, have ingested poisonous lead. This source is very credible it was published in
Chemistry and Ecology and was peer reviewed. It is a scientific study and does not have a
lot of bias. The article definitely supports the negative side effects of hunting. It has a fair
amount of scientific evidence to support this claim.

Jensen, Gitte Hj, Ingunn M. Tombre, and Jesper Madsen. "Environmental Factors Affecting
Numbers of Pink-footed Geese Anser Brachyrhynchus Utilising an Autumn Stopover
Site." Wildlife Biology 22.5 (2016): 183-93. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Oct.

Commented [PA8]: Okay, but this would be a unique

circumstance. Ammunition isnt made with lead in most
places, right? In your paper, it might odd to point this
oddball case out as major evidence.

Phillips 3

An experiment was performed to see what certain environmental factors influence where
pink-footed geese feed. I only focused on the hunting factor of this article. The group of
scientists recorded how frequently three separate regions were hunted and also how many
geese were harvested. According to the data geese tend to feed at sites that are less likely
to have hunters even if it means they will have less food. This article is credible because

Commented [PA9]: How interesting. So is this an

environmental problem? Does the source say so?

its peer reviewed and is a scientific experiment. It has very little bias seeing as it is an
experiment. This study supports the negative side effects of hunting showing geese
respond behaviorally to hunting in a negative way.

Le Page, Michael. "Unnatural Selection." New Scientist 210.2810 (2011): 32-37. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

Humans are causing plants and animals to evolve in a way that protects them from
humans. I didnt need the entire article except for the section on hunting. This section

Commented [PA10]: No real need to point this out.

discussed that humans hunt the biggest and most attractive animals unlike predators in
the wild who hunt the small and weak. This has led to multiple species having lesser
values. For example, sheep in Canada have evolved to have smaller antlers to avoid being

Commented [PA11]: What do you mean by values?

hunted. The evolution of the sheep and similar animals is a negative effect of hunting on

Commented [PA12]: Interesting. So, weve killed off a lot

of the larger antlered deer, and I guess those genes theyd
otherwise pass down.

the environment. The article was published in the New Scientist and is fairly credible. The
author has a slight bias against hunting because it affects evolution. It was written by the
biology features editor. This article is more evidence toward hunting having a negative
impact on the environment.

Commented [PA13]: Don't conflate bias with having an

opinion or a point of view. While we all have our biases, to
say something "is biased" suggests a point of view that is
unreasonably favorable to one side or has a conflict of
interest. We (and our sources) should be striving for a
reasonable amount of objectivity, despite our biases.

Phillips 4

Le Saout, Soizic, Sophie Padi, Simon Chollet, Simon Chamaill-Jammes, Jean-Louis Martin,
Steve Ct, Nicolas Morellet, Jake Pattison, and Erin Harris. "Short-term Effects of
Hunting on Nave Black-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus Hemionus Sitkensis): Behavioural
Response and Consequences on Vegetation Growth." Canadian Journal of Zoology 92.11
(2014): 915-25. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

In the article scientists conducted a hunting experiment on nave black-tailed deer. They
had a control group and an experimental group. In the experimental group the scientists
scared the deer so the deer would associate the fear and gunshots to being hunted. They
specifically looked at the indirect effects of hunting on four different species of plants
and vegetation. They found two of the plant species grew better outside of the
experimental group and the other two grew better inside the experimental group. So this
could be a positive or negative effect of hunting it just depends on the species of plant.
This article was peer reviewed and published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. Its
very credible. The authors are fairly unbiased; this was an experiment for scientific
purposes. This source could go either way. Hunting has a positive or negative effect on
the vegetation, it just depends on the vegetation.

Romano, Marcelo, Hebe Ferreyra, Gisele Ferreyroa, Fernando V. Molina, Andrea Caselli,
Ignacio Barberis, Pablo Beldomnico, and Marcela Uhart. "Lead Pollution from
Waterfowl Hunting in Wetlands and Rice Fields in Argentina." Science of the Total
Environment 545 (2016): 104-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

Commented [PA14]: I feel like I need to know more about

this. Youve given only part of the story.

Phillips 5

This article is a study done in specific areas of Argentina of lead concentration in

wetlands due to excessive waterfowl hunting. It was found that the lead from the pellets
used contributed to the lead pollution in the water, soil, and nearby vegetation. This is a
lot like the Italian wetland study written by Bianchi, again showing a negative side-effect.
Also, this lead pollution has happened more than once not making it a one-time-thing and
an actual problem. The findings are supported by a lot of data and includes many charts
and graphs. The article is peer reviewed and was published this year in Science of the
Total Environment.
Youve written an interesting and persuasive bibliography here. You've done a good job
conducting research on a broad scale. What you have here is interesting and compelling, and you
do a good job summarizing the sources in your annotations. While some of your findings were
new and interesting to me, I need you to think of an argument that you can make on this topic,
one that is worth debating. What is your exigency? Why do we need to know about this? What
reason does your audience have to get involved? In other words, why should we care about
certain populations of animals being negatively affected? Perhaps youll need to assume an
audience cares about animals in this way, but what about other audiences? What about hunters?
Why should they care? Really pull all of the research together for a common thesis. Again, you
have some compelling research here, and you are on your way. Looking forward to seeing the
next iteration of this one.

Phillips 6