Recreational Activities: A Critical Component for Societal Well-being
Recreational activities are critical and need to be free as they help build family unity, constitute a happier and more productive society, improve creativity, building self-esteem, and help build a stress-free society. The impacts these activities have on the environment needs consideration or evaluation, especially regarding hunting or fishing. Recreational hunting began in the ancient communities that moved from physical combat between men as well as between men and beasts through game hunting. After that, agriculture became more popular in providing food. However, hunting continued as an instinct of humans and due to the love for weapons. The obsession to apply the skillful human use of weapons did not disappear with the onset of other economic development, hence the persistence of rod and gun sport in the modern society (Bauer and Giles 23).
The Principles and Drive of Sportfishing: Similar to Hunting
Sportfishing or recreational fishing has the same principles and drive as hunting. According to this essay, assessing these socioeconomic, ecological, environmental, and ethical perspectives is the only avenue to deduce whether or not such recreational activities should be free.
Hunting for Sport: An Ethical Code of Conduct
Hunting for sport is better than the traditional hunting for food as there is an added ethical code of conduct governing the exercise formulated by recreational hunters themselves without the approval of bystanders. About thirteen percent of Americans, thirty million adults participate in fishing every year (The American Sportfishing Association 01). Recreational activities relative to hunting and fishing have its economic, social, cultural, and ecological impacts. Free in this context means an unregulated, lacking financial or insurance obligations, and independent of state agencies or private watchdogs like environmental activists. Therefore, free recreational activities in the context of hunting attract many controversies regarding the moral obligation to animals, the environment, and the law.
The Potential Threats of Recreational Hunting: Endangered Species and Ecological Imbalance
Recreational hunting is potential for the accelerated rate of animal extinction of endangered species and ecological imbalance. According to the theory developed by Charles Darwin, natural selection takes place such that animals that are more powerful and stronger pass on their genes for future generations and those that are weak falling prey and eliminated naturally. However, recreational hunting or fishing interferes with this balance since hunters seek the most aggressive and healthy animals. The injury that comes with arrows or weapons shot at the animals potentially change their behavior in an ecological set up such as marine or aquatic environment and game. Additionally, a good number of animals shot during sports-hunting potentially die as research, such as carried out by Craig, et al. indicates low chances of recovery from wounds. When the target game or marine animal is an endangered species, it is inevitable that the human recreational fishing or hunting accelerates their distinction rate. Therefore, free hunting means an unregulated activity, free to participate hence will attract more participants that increase the number of animals injured, chances of ecological disturbance, and unethical conduct or more inhuman approach to fishing or hunting.
The Importance of Regulation in Recreational Hunting: Ethical Handling and Conservation
Moreover, conservationists and critics of sport hunting maintain that most hunting still occurs on private land, where the law that protects wildlife and legal guidelines or regulations on weapons of hunting rarely apply or are difficult to enforce. In such cases as ranched or canned hunts, hunters pay to kill animals with the sole purpose of a trophy. Recreational hunting free from regulation is an avenue of unethical and improper handling of the game and other animal species validating the point of view of conservationists for regulated recreational activities concerning hunting and fishing.
The Economic Benefits of Recreational Hunting
Economies benefit from recreational hunting. Government agencies levy taxes on recreational hunting and fishing equipment. Additionally, recreational hunters and fishing professionals also need to attain a license. Licensing the industry is a way to control the equipment and assess or check the ethical aspects of the sports personality taking part in the recreational activities within the aquatic and game environments. Through licensing of the industry, governments raise revenues to support other development agendas. The ultimate effect is that recreational activities target only designated fishing and hunting areas free from endangered animal species and ecological environments that can sustain such activities. In this perspective, free fishing bears minimal weight against regulated and economically viable recreational fishing and hunting. Anglers buy fishing tackle and boat fuel, thereby generating revenue for the economy in return. Only those fishing tackles that the government approves as protective of the target fish species make it to the fishing grounds. Ultimately, revenue from tax helps in funding habitat improvement, managing fish, and wildlife species, both targeted by anglers and those not targeted (The American Sportfishing Association 05). In return, the revenue generated also funds public access to recreational grounds, helping to continue the cycle further. It is on this basis alone that free recreational activities, especially concerning fishing or hunting, are infeasible regarding sustainability.
The Importance of a Regulatory Framework: Conservation of Biodiversity
The regulatory framework is critical for the conservation of biodiversity, according to Sutherland et al. in their research on policy options for UK nature conservation, which free recreational activities threaten. For a long time, most of the issues about recreational hunting and by extension fishing revolved around the concerns for sustainability with the quarry species, the welfare of the animals, and animal rights. Those supporting the recreational activities related to hunting argue that the hunted game identification occurs relative to sex or age before killing and that the exercise does not result in many harvests. Even though this argument is a valid excuse for sustainability in recreational fishing or hunting, making it free beats any point of argument by those opposed to the exercise and those in support. The non-free recreational approach means an open case for anyone without any experience. The impact on the animal life will adversely increase, and environmental impacts will escalate to higher margins as hunters, sports fishers would have only one goal, catch as much as possible invalidating the argument for free recreational activity in this context.
The Cultural Relevance and Ethical Obligation of Recreational Hunting
Again, those advocating for recreational hunting and fishing to fall under free recreational activities claim that killing is never the intention of recreational hunting. They present that there is cultural relevance that these recreational activities offer to society. According to this perspective, recreational hunting is a pleasant occupation of pursuing wildlife and engaging in a chase. The most important thing is how a recreational hunter kills a quarry rather than the fact that an animal dies. In this context, free recreational hunting or fishing presents an ethical concern and legal responsibility for animal rights. What is the value of animal life? However, under a regulated environment or ecosystem, there is still a question of the ethical obligation of society to animal welfare, but at least the exercise faces control minimizing negative consequences and an underlying obligation to the environment maintained.
The Role of Regulation in Outdoor Recreation
Moreover, any forms of recreation that involve the use of natural resources that have relevance to human lives have some level of regulation within the necessary constraints of human duty to the environment. National parks and state recreational facilities give general guidelines such as those against feeding the animals, stepping on young seedlings, or littering, all of which refer to avoiding free recreational activities in any context. This argument has a basis in the Outdoor Recreation Act (Jensen and Guthrie 32), with a purpose to safeguard the public's right to access recreational sites and protect the natural basis for outdoor recreation.
The Availability of License-Free Days and Government Support
Lastly, government commissions, especially the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission already have a provision for license-free fishing and hunting days (first consecutive Sunday and Saturday of April, and Second Consecutive Saturday and Sunday of June). These days present an excellent opportunity for parents without a license to take their families fishing or avid anglers introduce close relatives or friends to the world of recreational hunting. Otherwise, recreational fishing requires licensing since the government spends money protecting the environmental resources that are the source of objects of recreational fishing or hunting. Without government support, these resources face depletion, and animals face extinction.
The Unsustainability of Free Recreational Activities
In conclusion, the evidence against free recreational activities in the context of this argument outweighs free recreational advocacy. The socio-economics of recreational hunting and fishing, such as fishing or hunting tax, insurance, license, lease, habitat protection, game protection control to wildlife damage, are only possible in a non-free recreational environment where sports fishing or hunting falls under the regulations provided by laws or ethical guidelines. Environmental impacts that free recreational activities in the context of fishing and hunting present are disastrous, not to mention the negative influence on the ecological balance, danger to wildlife, and hunters themselves. It is practically unsustainable to participate in any recreational activities, especially when it involves the utilization of natural resources free. Ultimately, the government generates revenue from the levies and licenses for those seeking a recreational permit to access such resources. Taxes from the equipment used in these activities are critical for the growth of other economic sectors. Hence, the conclusion that free recreational activities in the context of fishing or hunting are unsustainable for society, and there are limited reasons to advocate for free recreational hunting or fishing.
Works Cited
Bauer, Johannes J., and Jack Giles. Recreational hunting: an international perspective. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: CRC for sustainable tourism, 2002.
The American Sportfishing Association. "Understanding Activities That Compete With Recreational Fishing". Asafishing.Org, 2012, https://asafishing.org/uploads/Understanding_Activities_that_Compete_with_Recreational_Fishing.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
Sutherland, William J., et al. "The identification of priority policy options for UK nature conservation." Journal of Applied Ecology 47.5 (2010): 955-965.
Jensen, Clayne R., and Steven Guthrie. Outdoor recreation in America. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2006.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. "Free Fishing Days". Myfwc.Com, 2018, http://myfwc.com/license/recreational/do-i-need-a-license/free-fishing/. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
Packer, Craig, et al. "Sport hunting, predator control and conservation of large carnivores." PloS one 4.6 (2009): e5941.
