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.