Hunting or Killing?
Is hunting a moral or ethical practice in today’s society? Can we justify the killing of wild animals for food, clothing, or for sport. It has long been a fact of life that the human race has had to hunt in order to survive. But in this new age of technology were everything we need to survive can be found on a supermarket shelf, then why do we still hunt animals? It’s not out of necessity that many Americans continue to hunt, but rather the life experience and the respect of nature that is gained through the act of hunting. Some believe that hunting is just about killing, and that it holds no real life value. They consider it to be a blood sport, having only one purpose, the killing of animals. The animal rights activist will have you believe that animals are slaughtered without purpose and in inhumane ways. The antihunter will have you think that hunting contributes to gun related violent crimes and shooting accidents. The truth about hunting is that it is a natural, ethical, and socially responsible sport.
Hunting has been given a bad image by animal rights activists that claim it is a barbaric blood sport in which men with guns shoot everything thing in the woods that moves. Many people that are critical of hunting have never even experienced it, most only know what they have seen on television, or read in a magazine. They imagine blood, guts, and the scene in bambie where his mother is killed. What is it that makes hunting so cruel to the animals that are killed? It’s much less brutal than how pigs, cows, chickens, and other supermarket animals are killed. Why has the hunter been targeted as a cruel animal killer, and not the slaughter houses that supply the world’s supermarkets? Its all about perception, many have lost sight of what it takes to stock those store shelves, billions of animals raised in cramped pins and cages only to be killed for the sole purpose of eating. But the hunter is condemned for killing a wild...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document