Rendering: 'Bear hunting in California: the end of an era'

The article ‘Bear hunting in California: the end of an era’ was published by Rory Carroll in the Guardian on December 2. It reports at length that the controversial practice of hunting bears with dogs is about to be banned in the US state.

   Speaking on hunting bears, it’s necessary to note that about 1,700 black bears out of a population estimated between 23,000 to 39,000 can be legally "harvested" in California each year. Besides, hunters have killed 1,300 bears this season so far, so another 400 remain fair game. It’s necessary to note that almost half are done so with the help of hounds. But last month Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill, banning the hunting of bears and bobcats with hounds, which takes effect on 1 January 2013.

    Analyzing the situation with the bill, it’s necessary to emphasize that the practice has been declared archaic and cruel by powerful coalition of animal rights activists and Democrats. The ban will still let hunters kill the same number of bears – but without dogs. There is every reason to believe that pressure is expected to grow for similar bans in the 17 other states that allow hunting with dogs. Besides, it’s interesting to note that the impression of hounds men as heartless louts who persecute wildlife is all the more damning because popular culture depicts their victims as cuddly, honey-loving fur balls: Winnie the Pooh, Paddington Bear, Yogi Bear, Smokey Bear, Gentle Ben.

    Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s necessary to point out that some animal activists and Democrats are concerned that California's bear population needs to be controlled because it destroys hives, kills deer and marauds into towns, threatening human life and property. Moreover, it is more humane to tree a bear before shooting to determine if it is a suckling sow, and ensure a clean shot. The alternative, shooting from a distance with a telescopic sight, can inadvertently target sows and wound rather than kill, leaving bears to escape to slow, painful deaths. In addition, it’s important to note that animals in the wild don't die easily, as they get sick and wounded, they're killed by younger rivals, they starve. So saving animals from painful death, the human hunter of today is the most humane hunter in history.

   There are signs that some people consider the bill humane, as chopping up and hauling a bear's remains out of the forest is arduous and hunters are permitted only one kill per year so once they take a shot their season is over; that’s why they prefer to take pictures of the bear.

    The article draws a conclusion that it’s poor justification to harass bears to strip away the arguments about conservation, wildlife control and the hypocrisy of meat-eating urbanites, the hunters do what they do largely because their fathers did it, and because it's fun. But at the same time, in many ways, the hunters care more about the woods than most urban opponents admit.

   Having read the article, I was shocked to get to know that the hunters benefit nature, killing animals; and no matter whether they are sick, weak or old. In nature, everything is balanced, everything is taken into account; after all, these animals (mentioned above) "kill" their own kind in order to survive themselves, and killing them ourselves, we break this balance. Besides, I’ve never accepted hunting, as it is cruel and inhuman. It’s an open secret that if in the past, people hunted to feed themselves, to survive; now hunting is only fun (now it is even something like sports). It’s necessary to note the fact that now the bears’ population is big enough, but what will be if almost every allows himself such a "privilege" as hunting - then the population will be reduced. And what will humanity do next? prey on other animals? which in the end will lead to the moment when almost all species are on the verge of extinction.