Andrea Lopez Labrador

English 111
Dr. Lacey
23/10/19

Is hunting ethical?
Evolution has led us to make good decisions and improvements in our lives: transport,
technology, knowledge and many more fields. Evolution must continue and it is time for
something as old as hunting to begin to take the background as survival and non-recreational
activity. It is time to put aside ideologies, understand the two parts of the story but understand Commented [KL1]: I’m not quite sure evolution is the best
phrase to use here. That’s connotes something that’s
that we are not only talking about activists and hunters, but it is also to understand that there is involuntary, in a sense.
a third subject in this story: animals. We are intelligent living beings, and we still do activities
that make us primitive. We have many other sports and activities in our lives to need hunting
as such. It is time to evolve, to leave minority hunting to obtain animal food, and begin to see Commented [KL2]: ?
and believe that all living beings deserve the only thing in the world that nobody has in its
accuracy: freedom. In a nutshell, we human beings settle in doing and believing what we have
been doing for years, even with hunting, this activity that our brothers started in it Paleolithic.
That activity that began as a symbol of survival and intelligence, has turned us into unethical,
beings, aggressive beings, and soulless beings. Commented [KL3]: As a reader, I’m unclear what your
argument is. You need to state that very clearly.
For those who do not know or are familiar with the main issue, we are arguing, in a nutshell, Commented [KL4]: Use “I” since it’s only one person
writing, correct?
the hunt to which we are going to refer, is animal slaughter with some kind of purpose. In
prehistory, as different studies and prehistoric paintings show, it was hunted for human Commented [KL5]: You need to cite your sources
survival, to be able to feed us or even not to die because when living with wild animals, they
could attack us with the same purpose as humans, eat. This could lead to the killing of the Commented [KL6]: Break this into two sentences.
animal for two reasons, but the purpose was feeding. At present, it is still hunted with the Commented [KL7]: What are the two reasons?
purpose of feeding us with animal meat but, other purposes are included, hunting as a sport Commented [KL8]: What is “it”? Name it to clarify.
where the deceased animal is the prize to be taken, as well as the trophy hunt that is the same
with the difference that the animals to hunt are an endangered species.

If in the 21st century, we find stipulated rules for hunting as such, where you must have a class
of permits and courses taken to perform this activity such as hunting safety courses or, even in
some states, gun safety courses. Not all states or countries have the same established rules for Commented [KL9]: If all this…then what? This is an
incomplete sentence.
hunting, but they all have something in common: the need to have a license to hunt. Speaking
Commented [KL10]: Use research to support these claims.
of a topic such as hunting, we find two opposite sides. Firstly, the group formed by those who
Commented [KL11]: Sure, but you need to choose one of
defend hunting as a sport or even as an activity for their benefit purposes, be it a recreational, these for your argument. That’s the point of this paper. There
are more options than this.
economic or nutritional benefit. Here we would find hunters mainly, and those who practice
hunting or not, support and and support hunting. They support the idea that the sport of hunting
does not have to be cruel, but rather orient it to a sport of survival and strength to feed or get
something from the hunted animals. And then we find the opposite side, those activists against Commented [KL12]: I’m still unsure what your specific
stance is. You need to take a very clear side.
all possible animal damage, who support causes that defend the rights of animals and that are

1
Andrea Lopez Labrador
English 111
Dr. Lacey
23/10/19

against playful or beneficial issues with animal suffering in between. They support the idea that
the sport of hunting is cruel, unnecessary and unethical, where an animal can suffer a prolonged
and painful death. They justify that a human death by an animal that seeks to survive is not
comparable, with since an animal death by a human that is a result of seeks human pleasure.
And my thesis supports this point of view. Where hunting is not a justifiable activity, it is Commented [KL13]: What is your thesis? Readers should
know it by now.
immoral and ancient. Evolution shows humans as intelligent people, but we still do things like
that. People think we need hunting to have meat in our diets, but evolution changed that. People Commented [KL14]: Like what? Name it to clarify.
think animals don’t deserve to be free and thinking that, people become wild, violent and Commented [KL15]: Hasn’t industrialization changed
that?
heartless.

With this main theme, we find a constant struggle and intense debate between these two sides
of society. We can hardly find someone at an intermediate point, you can support the hunt in
some way or reject it in its entirety, but you can hardly not opt for one of these two sides. Commented [KL16]: Use research to support these claims.

According to the hunters and those who profit from this activity, we observe the need for
hunting to obtain economic benefits that can be directed to the care and maintenance of those
endangered species, to restore their habitat and to keep these unique species alive. “Advocates
of trophy hunting, and even the United States government, have long justified the killing of
protected wildlife in Africa by saying that taxes and fees from the hunts help pay for larger
conservation efforts” (Smith, 2016). In turn, the need to hunt to obtain animal meat and be able Commented [KL17]: Remember to use the framing
techniques we practiced in class.
to provide animal meat in society to feed us. In this case, we find political and regulatory
limitations, where those who practice this activity must comply with the regulations of the place
where they are located or where they want to hunt. In turn, limitations on the amount of hunting,
where the bag limit law establishes the monthly amount of each species that can be killed. Other Commented [KL18]: Explain what this is. Cite your
sources.
limitations are seasonal ones where hunting is not allowed in the closed season. Or even
Commented [KL19]: Use research to include some of
limitations produced by the environmental problems that hunting may entail with the bullet these limitations in your argument.
caps that remain at the hunting site and take many years to disintegrate. Nowadays, hunting is
talked about as a necessity. The nNeed to kill animals to get food from them, hunt for economic
goods to improve the lives of animals or hunt because an animal if it were the other way around,
would kill us. Many think so and, support these ideas either for their ideals, for the meaning of Commented [KL20]: Explain this line of thinking a little
more. Use a more specific example to help.
hunting in their families or for the experiences obtained. In my case, I see these points as
weaknesses of people, as a denial of evolution to advance in society, as a way to follow those
ideals because it is more comfortable than offering a radical change. Commented [KL21]: So are you arguing against hunting?
Meat eating? As a reader, I’m still uncertain. Add a sentence
According to pacifists, entities and all those people who reject hunting as such, they defend at the beginning of your essay that clearly states your stance.
“In this essay, I am arguing…”
the need to leave animals free, to leave them alone, to avoid being afraid of humans. According
to the National Research Council, “Science and the Endangered Species Act”, they said that Commented [KL22]: I don’t know if this is an article or a
larger work—I don’t see it in your works cited page.

2
Andrea Lopez Labrador
English 111
Dr. Lacey
23/10/19

hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters
do not need for subsistence (21). They support not to makemaking animals suffer because they Commented [KL23]: For APA, use the year instead.
have feelings such as fear or pain, and above all the refusal to make them suffer for fun watching
hunting as a sport. They defend not to profit from this activity, they support natural reserves as Commented [KL24]: Are you still referring to pacifists? If
so, remind your readers.
a safe place for the maintenance of endangered species without the need for extra benefits
provided by trophy hunting. On this site, we find more difficulties at the time of being able to Commented [KL25]: I think that sentence just confused
your readers more than adding to your argument.
put an end or to have means to stop or put measures to the hunt as a profit topic. The main
limitations we find are laws in society since to protest or put measures on this issue, these
groups often disobey the law or perform acts of civil disobedience. And in turn, the economic Commented [KL26]: Are there specific instances of this
idea related to hunting? Use research to find out.
need to be able to maintain the natural reserves, without needing to obtain that income through
animal suffering.

For those like me who are not experts or experts on this topic, we can position ourselves on
one side or another of society concerning our ideals, we can criticize or comment on it but
without foundations and knowledge, it is difficult to know everything that involves this sport
or activity or what is behind. People and news just show the part that is beneficial for the
economy and they don’t care about animals or their lives.

According to the pacifists or people against hunting like me, we believe in the idea that it is
unethical to support this activity or sport because we don’t need hunting in our lives. It doesn't Commented [KL27]: Ok, here it is clear what you’re
arguing. This would be beneficial much earlier in your
matter if your family or previous generations were hunters, support something that you feel it argument
as a way to feel being able to take the life of a living being is violent and immoral. We need to
eat meat, we need to feed or include in our diets part of the vitamins and qualities of animals.
But today we have different ways to get meat, and hunting is not necessary anymore.

We need animal food, but for this, it is not necessary to hunt the number of animals that are
hunted daily in the world. To obtain this food it is not necessary to cause suffering in the animal,
where it suffers for its life moments before dying upon hearing a shot or seeing a human being
with a weapon. It is not necessary to be able to cause a slow and suffered death caused by a bad Commented [KL28]: Consider breaking this into two
sentences.
shot or lack of knowledge and practice. It is not necessary to hunt or kill the animal with a shot,
several studies show or have shown ways to kill the animal without the suffering caused by a Commented [KL29]: Such as? Be specific.
bullet, ways to kill the animal more effective and instantaneous. But of course, that's not fun. Commented [KL30]: Is this supposed to be sarcastic? It’s
unclear.
People like power, feeling superior to animals, being able to snatch a life with their hands to
feel that they are valuable and braver or strong for doing something like that. It is a way to have
fun, to hang out, to entertain themselves where we can get ahead or some horns as a prize. But
what if it was the other way around? What would it look like to those who enjoy hunting feeling
like they make animals feel while on the opposite side? Helpless, with the legs as an element

3
Andrea Lopez Labrador
English 111
Dr. Lacey
23/10/19

of survival where your only defense is to run and pray so that the weapon does not pass through
your skin. With fear for your life, for dying and unable to do anything to avoid it. But of course,
hunters feel like animals do not have the same rights to live that we humans have because they
do not speak.

Others talk about the need to hunt for the economy, the eeconomic benefits to keep the species
alive. And to this, my question is, who ensures that this money is directed to the maintenance
and protection of the species and not to profit from it? Besides, it could add the activity of
natural shelters where they protect and care for animals or even the life cycle itself. Animals,
like humans, are beings that have survived with each other for years, without the need for
economic benefits or excessive hunting. Animals do not need more food, or better facilities,;
they need to be free just like us. The economic benefits only the one who receives them knows
exactly where each dollar obtained goes and, taking into account the income we obtain with
trophy hunts, it seems to be an important issue to doubt about the hunting and protection of
these species in danger of extinction.

Hunting as a matter of survival seems to me to be something old and difficult to protect as an

argument. Animals, if they needed to eat, they would kill us, since they move by instincts. But
surely a wild animal does not start killing humans simply for fun. Animals kill for survival, to
feed or not to die, they would not take life to entertain themselves. The thing that we do. It is
time to leave the activities that make us primitive and evolve finally.

REFERENCES Commented [KL31]: Where did you use these sources?

You must indicate where you used them with in-text
citations.
Shaw, H. (2017) On killing. Retrieved from https://honest-food.net/on-killing/

Jan (2012) Can hunting endangered animals save the species? CBS News.
Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-hunting-endangered-animalssave-the-
species/4/

Binford, L. R. (1985). Human Ancestors: Changing Views of Their Behavior.

Journal of Anthropological Archeology 4, 292-327. Retrieved from: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0278416585900091?via%3Dihub

4
Andrea Lopez Labrador
English 111
Dr. Lacey
23/10/19

Sanchez, R. (2015, November 2). Elk Hunting Laws and Regulations. Retrieved
from: http://www.elk-hunting.org/blog/elk-hunting-laws-16.html

Smith, J. F. (2016, June 13) Trophy Hunting Fees Do Little to Help Threatened
Species, Report Says. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://
www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/trophy-hunting-fees-do-little-to-help-
threatenedspecies-report-says.html?_r=1

Grade: D