High school research paper on ethics of trapping

Hello, I am writing a research paper for my bioethics class on the ethical views of trapping. Any information, advice, or anything helpful would be appreciated. I do have to cover both sides of ethical vs. non ethical for this paper, even though I trap and support trapping 100%. If anyone has ideas for the non ethical stand point would also be great! Thank you!

We know why lots of people don't like trapping. Just take that point of view and objectively write about it in that portion. You don't have to personally believe in something to make the argument.

Don't forget to post your paper on here when finished!

There are no non ethical parts about it. It's the most green you can get environmentally. The hippies and libs like green.

Thank you! I will post it when it's done!

I know that part, I am just looking for things that they would say to make it seem non ethical. I completely agree with you.

Pain, suffering, and taking of a life seem to be the anti's points
The harvesting of another natural resource is the foundation and order of the natural world. The circle of life. The most simple purist natural order of things. The way mother nature is designed to function. What could more natural and pure than nature's own design? I see no ethical reasons humans can't be part of the circle of life.

I caught my small town Dr's dog in a foothold one time and he was the one that found it. He was more than a little upset at first. I reset the 4 coiled #3 and stuck my hand in it and calmly proceeded to tell him I had left his office in more pain from procedures he had done to me than what the trap was causing. He realized the trap wasn't as harmful as he thought. Good reasonable guy once he knew the facts.

There are no non ethical reasons, period. This seems an appropriate time to take a stand and refuse to give points to the other side.

The main argument antis use is called utilitarianism. Look it up. Basically it says that pleasure and a lack of pain are the only things that matter and when you make decisions you need to perform are those that result in the greatest pleasure. They then put nonhuman animals and humans on the same field and say well your pleasure (whether measured in the experience or bought by the money you get) is outweighed by the loss of pleasure by the animal.. this is an argument against hunting and livestock too. You could cite Animal Liberation as a source but I would check with your parents before reading it as it has some very disturbing ideas.

There are many possible responses. The strongest in my opinion is that humans have special rights and while we need to treat animals with dignity, trapping does this. You could also use a religious argument that God put us as stewards of creation. Look up Aquinas on animals.

Source-I was an animal rights activist about your age 😜

Most of the nonethical reasons are lies. Words like torture and bone crushing, chewed its own foot off, are tossed about. Animals are talked about as though they are human. That animals are capable of cognitive thinking. Trappers are said to kill for sport or fun. No mention is ever made of the cruelty in the natural world.

Often animals like bobcats are said to threatened with extinction, and animals like lynx and wolves are said to be unnecessarily killed by trappers targeting animals like bobcats and coyotes.

Problems caused by beaver coyotes etc are said to be controllable with nonlethal means.

Finally is morality. Animal rights is based on the idea that it is immoral to kill animals.

The reality of trapping is it benefits wildlife and reduces issues with humans, most animals have no limits on them because they are prolific breeders and their numbers need to be kept in check, each animal is its own worse enemy as they compete for the same resources. Trapping has not hurt the wildlife numbers since the onset of conservation programs, the same programs that support wildlife when needed.

My question is what is out there that has been as successful as the conservation efforts accomplished in this great Nation since conservation efforts have been in play. The biggest threat to wildlife today is the bulldozer and the animal rights morons. Conservation programs focus on everything as a whole were the AR clowns focus on a single issue missing the ripple effects of their short sited goals doing more harm then good in the end.

I pose this question, "Is it ethical for people to clean their contact lenses with any cleaning solutions". The solutions work by lysing the organism's cell wall (exploding them) as they try to make a living on the lense's surface. Is that needed? Wear glasses to be ethical to those organisms or don't clean your contact lenses. We won't get into cleaning your C-PAP. Come on,,,,,,,,,,, a million examples of ETHICAL,,,,,,,,,,,, what is and what isn't exist in the animals world. Intelligent people (and even those not so intelligent like me) recognize that society tries for double standards to fit their means so you weigh in the (big 3) Economical, Biological and (unfortunately) Emotional aspects of organism usage by mankind. Then make that decision based on the factual data in front of you.................. Still can't understand why society get's hung up on animal emotionalism, I'm spoiled I guess................... the mike

There is a video called"destroying the myth"or is "understanding the myth" anyways a great video to inform people an actual physical demo like sticking your hand in a coil spring helps

It may be well to review statements from wildlife and game management agencies nationwide. Almost all states have science based harvest management and wildlife management to help maintain and or control wildlife and species etc. Those states that have lost some or all of their trapping related harvest management methods have done so through the political process and system and not the science based wildlife management of the agencies responsible for managing wildlife.

Bryce

I usually try to work this in one way or another:

I believe that the word "humane" is derived from "human". Like when someone came across a sic or starving critter. It was/is considered humane to put it out of its misery, rather than let nature take its course. There is almost no death waiting for a critter in mother nature that anyone would consider humane. Only when a human gets involved does a critters death have a chance of being humane. IMO

I have to ask, what the H is bioethics? It would appear to be an attempt to combine biology and ethics, which is odd because biology does not involve or recognize the ethics of a biological action. Perhap schools should teach biological process and let individuals determine their own ethics.

It is biology combined with ethics. Topics like cloning, organ transplants, things like that.

Varner67:

One important thing you may wish to outline in your document is the simple fact that the fur trade is the oldest land-based industry in North America.

Like any other industry, we have evolved over the years. As such the fur industry has developed many practices in order to improve harvest methods. The industry has conducted trap research which led to implementation of guidelines and legislation for trappers for example Fur Harvest, Fur Management and Conservation Courses in most jurisdictions is a legal requirement before being issued a trapping licence.

I am including our local Trappers Council website link which may be helpful to you. http://gtc-ctg.weebly.com/.

You will find videos on fur trade and how our industry is promoted.

I just noted that we have to further review/update some of these links.

However, listed under Canadian Fur Institute link you will find valuable information on the ``Truth about Fur`` including trapping/ fur industry contreversy issues being voiced in some US States.


I hope it helps. Good luck!