The Fontanelle Forest: To Hunt or Not To Hunt
Tyler Thomas
Phil2300
December 3, 2013
Found in Nebraska is the Fontenelle Forest, a 1,400 acre “national natural
landmark.” The Fontenelle Forest is run by the Fontenelle Forest Association, now
known as the Fontenelle Nature Association after a name change occurred in
2000, which is a non-profit organization that works to protect the forest. In 1910,
a group of businessmen and scholars who had a mutual goals established the
forest in order to “preserve the beautiful lands” (History, 2013). There are two
rules put in place in regards to the Fontenelle Forest. The Fontenelle Nature
Association has established that 1) “All plant and animal life is strictly protected”
and 2) “No hunting, fishing, or weapons” (Diamond, 1992). Although the
Fontenelle Nature Association has the common goal to protect the lands of the
forest, the rules that are currently in place are in need of revision in order to
ensure a long term future of the Fontenelle Forest.
The rules of the Fontenelle forest are in place to ensure human
interference does not affect the successful growth and lifespan of the land,
plants, and animals. The ecosystem within the Fontenelle Forest is essentially
untouched by the human species because of the rules in place by the
association. These two simple rules once had the potential to be beneficial to
an ecosystem; however that time passed when humans first interfered with the
natural world. At face value these rules my still seem to be advantageous to the
species within a biotic community, especially to an individual who is unfamiliar
with natural processes and needs. Despite the contrary argument, when one
looks deeper into the subject it is obvious to most that the Fontenelle Nature
Association needs to revisit the rules that are currently enforced.
There was a time during the era of exploitation that human beings took
advantage of the species within the natural world. Animals were shot and killed
simply for amusement during westward expansion, plant life was destroyed in
order for human development to occur, and water sources were polluted by
men who were unaware of their actions and the implications they would have
in the future. Due to this initial interaction of humans and the natural community,
neither will be able to thrive without the one another. Both humans and the
natural world will now be forever independent of each other.
The Fontenelle Forest will be faced with an immediate problem of
overpopulation of mammalian species, and the destruction of plant species as
a byproduct due to rules that were once put in place to protect the
environment. The early depreciation of predators in the United States, especially
the states in the Midwest including Nebraska, has caused populations of
creatures such as bears, wolves, and coyotes to be at an all time low
depending on the area. These animals were thought to be extremely harmful to
humans and many were unaware of what could possibly happen. Due to low
numbers in all predator populations, other creatures that were once preyed
upon are now allowed to thrive in numbers with no threat from natural species.
Because of the imbalance of populations, humans are now required to assist in
the management of said populations.
Hunting, despite the reasoning, poses an argument within American
society. Differing views of the topic have triggered a national debate. Aldo
Leopold, the creator of the land ethic, stated that “the land ethic changes the
role of the Homo sapiens from the conqueror of the land-community to plain
member and citizen of it.” If this statement from Leopold is true, hunting should
not be opposed because, as a member of the biotic community, humans
would just be doing their part in population control as predators once did. Those
who oppose humans hunting wildlife such as Tom Regan or Peter Singer have
never openly recognized a problem with hunting that was played out by two
animals who are members of the biotic community, such as a wolf killing a deer.
Yet if humans are also members and citizens of the some biotic community as
Leopold says, many would ask why there would there be opposition to a human
taking the life of a deer.
Hunting is necessary within the Fontenelle Forest now more than ever.
According to the essay written by Jared Diamond entitled “Must We Shoot Deer
to Save Nature?” deer populations are becoming overly abundant, destroying
plant species, and thus endangering the lives of other herbivores.
Overpopulation is often avoided by predators that control the numbers of
certain species, such a deer for example. Yet, due to the lack of predators
within natural communities, human hunting is the main option to control animal
populations.
The arguments against humans hunting animals often traces back to pain
and suffering. Peter Singer’s moral circle includes any being that has the
capacity to feel pleasure and pain. He could argue that because animals, such
as deer in the case of the Fontenelle Forest, can feel pain and suffering it is
immoral to hunt and kill them. However despite his arguments of pain and
suffering, an argument by Aldo Leopold counters Singer’s moral circle. Leopold
states “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and
beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Although
an animal may feel a moment of pain when being killed by a human hunter, the
long term effects of human population management will have a positive result.
Without human interaction in regards to wildlife population control, the vast
amount of overpopulation has the ability to cause slow and painful deaths to a
large number of animal species. The reasoning behind this is due to the
ecosystem being unable to support such an immense amount of a single animal
population. Shortages of food, water, nutrients, and space can all cause the
death of animals. Some may argue that these deaths are in a sense more
humane than animal deaths caused by hunting, however referencing Singer’s
moral circle it is proven that this argument is untrue. Singer believes that the
effect can still be immoral, even if the intentions were not so. In this case, the
effect would be allowing animals to die due to starvation, malnutrition, and
overcrowding which would cause an immense amount of suffering. The
intentions of banning hunting may seem moral, yet after viewing the overall
effect it is proven to be a violation of moral beliefs.
Within the Fontenelle Forest, hunting has the ability to promote a brighter
and healthier future for the land as a whole. In order to cease and reverse the
damage that has already been done to the plant species in the area due to
overpopulation of deer especially, the policies in place by the Fontenelle Nature
Association must be amended. Although arguments for and against hunting will
always exist, those who are capable of making decisions in the case of the
Fontenelle Forest need to put aside any ulterior motives they may have or
personal beliefs and broaden their prospective in order to create policies as well
as a plan to put those policies in place that will yield the best outcome for
members of the natural community.