Josh Seifert

Drexler
Philosophy 2300
December 12, 2015

Final Essay: Hunting and the Fontanelle Forest

My final paper this semester will be in regards to Module 5, Hunting and the Fontanelle
Forest. I will be illustrating my views on this topic, as well as providing insights and arguments
from different theorists we have learned about.
The issue in question is whether or not the Fontanelle Forest Administration should
amend their rules #1 and #2. Rule #1 states: All plant and animal life is strictly protected. Rule
#2 states: No hunting, fishing, or weapons. There are multiple theories about this topic; not all
are common, but all from equally great minds.
The first theory I will touch on is the theory by Peter Singer. Singer believes that animals
are sentient beings; meaning that they have the ability to feel pleasure and pain. (Singer, Mod
4). With that being said, he is obviously against hunting, fishing etc., and would not feel as
though the rules should be amended. This is a tough one for me. I am pro hunting and fishing,
later I will go more in-depth, but at the same time I see where singer is coming from. After what
I learned about how animals are treated before being processed for food, I feel as though we
should be more aware of how they are treated.
The next example is a theory by Aldo Leopold. His main idea is that humans are not the
conquerors of the biotic community, but only members; just like plants and wildlife. He 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. (Aldo, Mod 5). Considering Aldos idea that
humans are merely members of the biotic community, it is our responsibility to do what is right
for the community. In this case that means hunting. Hunting not only provides food for the
hunter, but it keeps a stable and healthy population in the environment. This is a great thing for
the Fontanelle Forest considering the deer population there is vastly outnumbered. It would be
safe to assume that Leopold would be all-for amending the rules of the Fontanelle Forest,
allowing hunters to naturally control the population. One fact to endorse this assumption would
be that the deer are in such large numbers that they consume the vegetation at an extremely high
rate. This does not leave enough food or shelter for other members of the biotic community. I
personally side with Aldo. This is my favorite theory as it touches on all of the points that I feel
are necessary. As humans, and part of the biotic community, it is our obligation to do what is
right for the community. In this case, that would mean amending the two rules in question in
order to return order and a healthy population in the Fontanelle Forest. Like Leopold, Gary
Varner also has more of a holistic approach to the issue of hunting. Varners beliefs are quite
similar to Aldos, such that he believes hunting can be done therapeutically and also as wildlife
management.
This then brings up the question, Are we morally obligated to be vegetarian? In my
opinion, absolutely not. My stance is that being carnivorous is normal. I feel that all animals
have a purpose on this planet and one of those purposes is to provide food for humans, and/or
other animals. I feel that if animals are hunted for food then their death is validated. The animals
that are being hunted for food have that purpose in life. My approach is closely related to Aldo
and Varner, in that hunting can be done in a respectful way. If we as humans are hunting in
approved areas where population control is needed, and we go about it in the right way, then

hunting is actually encouraged by me. It is our responsibility to do whatever we can to keep

balance in the biotic community.
Another question is if animals have rights. As Singer says, Animals are sentient beings.
This is true; they do have the ability to feel pleasure and pain. But this does not mean that they
are to be held to the same standards as humans. Animals are here for a purpose, just like every
other member of the biotic community, and for some that means they are to feed other members
of the community, including humans. However, they absolutely have the right to be treated fairly
and as gracefully as possible. That is their right. Hunting and fishing in the Fontanelle Forest
would not violate those rights as long as it is regulated, and gone about properly and
thoughtfully.
In conclusion, I would like to give my final thoughts on this topic. There are many firstclass thoughts and theories that we have covered; and I cannot say that I 100% agree with one in
particular. I feel that my feelings about it correlate enormously with those of Aldo Leopold.
Doing everything we can to keep a balance in the forest is our responsibility as humans. There
are many reasons why we need to amend the rules #1 and number #2, and the positive effects of
doing that will greatly outweigh the negative. Yes, there will be deer that are killed. That is the
bottom line. Singer might not agree with me, but if you look at the positive outcome of allowing
hunting, it is unmistakable what needs to be done. The fact is the Fontanelle Forest is out of
balance. There are too many deer for the area. If this does not change it will cause great harm to
the community in the long run. We need to do the right thing as humans and allow hunting and
fishing in the forest for the animals sake. We must amend rules #1 and #2.