To Hunt or Not to Hunt?

University Degree Biological Sciences

Hughes, Erin

Eng. 96

Mr. Cortina

To Hunt or Not to Hunt?

“Hunting is wrong, and should be acknowledged to be so not only by those who espouse the strict precepts of the animal – rights credo, but by those who hold a common sense of decency, respect, and justice.”

I believe hunting is wrong for several reasons. Hunting is indeed immoral. Hunting lowers populations of species that should be abundant in the wild. Hunters who hunt for the game of it are wasteful creatures. Hunters who hunt and kill for the sport and the prize of eating what they killed basically indulge in the meat unnecessarily, or for no reason but to satisfy taste buds. The majority of hunters hunt only for a thrill that is not worth killing over.

People, who hunt animals in the wild, kill animals. Mainly every shot leads to the sting and eventually death of an animal. To kill an animal of the wild just for the sport of it, I feel, is wrong. It would be understandable to hunt if you were starving and had absolutely nothing to eat and it was your last choice on the menu or if it is the only way of obtaining meat. That would then be a means for your survival, which is necessary for all species.

In today’s society, hunting wild animals in the wilderness is no longer needed by the human race. Today we have slaughterhouses that kill livestock to provide for the hungry human population. Hunting for food is ridiculous now days in countries such as the United States. You can purchase what you want from a meat market.

Paying for meat at the super market is totally different from hunting down prey for a juicy meal. People raise livestock, for example, cows. People raise cows to produce food for the billions upon billions of people who live in this world. If it weren’t for humans breeding the cows for consumption, there would be no more cows. The cows would not be able to survive in the world today, because the environment wouldn’t be able to accommodate for them and the cows would most likely be hunted for food, leaving them to extinction. If hunters breed elk, like people ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Paying for meat at the super market is totally different from hunting down prey for a juicy meal. People raise livestock, for example, cows. People raise cows to produce food for the billions upon billions of people who live in this world. If it weren’t for humans breeding the cows for consumption, there would be no more cows. The cows would not be able to survive in the world today, because the environment wouldn’t be able to accommodate for them and the cows would most likely be hunted for food, leaving them to extinction. If hunters breed elk, like people breed cows, then went hunting for them, that would be a different story. Then again, the hunters wouldn’t want to hunt for the elk any more because there would be a lot of them and the challenge of hunting would no longer exist. The main difference of people producing cows for consumption and hunting, is that businesses in the meat packing industries get their resources, animals, from breeding houses; not straight from the wild. If they got their resources straight from the wild like hunters do, then you can say buying a package of steaks from a meat market is the same as hunting.

Since hunting down an animal takes that animal out of the “gene pool”, it leaves that animals species with one less genetic variation then it had before. The more animals you have in a single species the more chances it has for survival, because of the variation in its genes. When you hunt you lesson the chances for that species survival in the world. People who support hunting say that what they are doing is maintaining the populations of the animals that live in the wild. What makes it our place, as humans, to maintain other species populations, when we should be looking at maintaining our own population? It is not in our hands to control other species including their populations. It is up to the species itself to maintain their population and thrive to be the fittest. All we should do to help other species is to not destroy their habitat for our own selfish needs. Hunting and lowering populations does not help the environment. There are other animals, which some we hunt, in the wild that prey on other animals we hunt as well. So if we just stopped hunting them all together, nature will find a balance like it usually does; leaving populations in the wild maintained all on its own.

Hunters who hunt just for the sport of it are wasteful creatures. They kill for the thrill like a mad man would on the streets of New York. I don’t see anything different then killing an animal for pleasure and killing a human being for pleasure. It is the same to me. It is barbaric and inhumane. If a hunter kills just for the sport, the food aspect is out of the question, which is very wasteful. I think if you kill the animal, you better well eat it so that you don’t waste. To just shoot a deer, or any other animal, and use its head as a trophy and discard the meat and skin is flat out cruel beyond a doubt.

Hunters who hunt for the sport as well as the food pertained by killing an animal, are basically eating the meat for no real reason, but to satisfy their taste buds. Is it really worth it to shoot and kill an animal just because you suddenly have the taste for it? All the money and time you spend to hunt it down, its not worth it. To kill an animal for your own selfish desire is arrogant behavior. I understand all the money big time hunters put into hunting somewhat contributes to the conservation of wild life, but I feel they are just paying for only half of which they take out of the environment and not all. I think it is an unequal trade off, an animals life for, lets say, two thousand dollars. The cost of living is much more then money can buy.

All who hunts animals basically hunt for the sport and for the thrill of it. The people who hunt like to kill animals; they like to kill. “For the hunter to admit that there’s something enjoyable about killing and animal is considered fantastic.” How can they rave about killing almost helpless animals? The majority of hunters claim to be nature-loving naturalists who spend around ninety-nine percent of their time helping out the environment. “We’re nature lovers”, hunters say. They are like hypocrites. It is like ordering a super sized value meal from Mc Donald’s and then ordering a diet coke; makes no sense. Before the hunters can call themselves nature lovers, they need to get rid of there past time activity that contradicts the label they place upon themselves as environmentalist and nature lovers.

In conclusion hunting is wrong. Hunting shows it is immoral by killing for the thrill of it. Doing anything for the thrill of it is not a reason to do it. Its just another form of entertainment, but unlike harmless entertainment such as television, hunting is harmful. Being a hunter, you get a thrill out of being vandalistic. If you find entertainment resulting in being harmful, that’s unjust. Hunting does more bad then any good. Decreases populations of species and is at times a wasteful act. It is plainly seen that hunting is a sport for pleasure seeking selfish people.

Resources:

Ridder, Knight. “Anti-hunting movement alive and well in some parts of U.S.” 2003.
Detwiler, Jonathan. “Can I kill An Animal Ethnically”. 2001.
Penfield, Elizabeth. Short Takes seventh addition: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. 2002