Shoobee

For a paper like this, for school, any state DFG booklet would provide a wealth of information. Their internet website would do so as well.

Economically speaking, it will all come down to fee revenues received by the state.

For example, my state has about 200,000 deer hunters, who each pay about $100 per year to hunt deer. This equals $20,000,000 that these hunters will pay to the state, which is not paid by bird watchers or nature hikers or hippies, and which is used for wildlife management. So the hunters are bearing the full financial burden of the state's wildlife management program.

If you eliminated/banned hunting, this $20 million would disappear, as well as the jobs and additional economic spending it supports. Even if that makes the bird watchers, nature hikers, and hippies happy, it won't be good for the state or the business.

Scientifically you would want to point out that hunters only take excess game populations that the wildlife biologist determine can easily be spared. Normally this excess is the drone male buck population, which does not breed anyway.

If human hunters do not harvest these excess bucks, then other natural predators will take them, as will traffic vehicles, or they will die uselessly.

That much is the common sense no-brainer part of the discussion.

Trophy hunting versus meat hunting is probably not relevant in the USA. Trophy hunting is an African continent issue, not American. So this is a red herring that you might as well dismiss as smoke screen coming from the bird watchers, nature hikers, and hippies. You would have to smoke a lot of dope before these red herring arguments make any sense. Smoking dope is a relevant issue, though, for bird watchers, nature hikers, and hippies.

You can call me Fred Bear. He was a famous bowhunter. His memory lives on. That is also what he would tell you.