Hunting Morality This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine.

   With hunting season fast approaching in the Northeast, the debate about its morality and humanity will be sparked. Often the point of controversy, hunting is crucial to some people's lives and economy, while for others, it's a game. Animal activists are constantly trying to put restrictions and laws to regulate or forbid the practice, but many are battling to keep it legal.

Animal activists often preach that the hunting is inhumane. The basis of their argument is as follows: animals have no choice in the matter. If someone chooses to hunt them, they may be killed. Second, they have no defense against human weapons. All they can do is run. Humans have the ability to hide in the animals' living area, camouflaged, and even wearing

animal scent. It seems as if the animals stand

no chance.

Hunters see hunting in a whole different light. In areas away from cities in northern New England, hunting is a large part of the economy. Restaurants serve deer, bear, or moose meat. The skins and homs are valuable, and often hunters need the food for their families. Other people hunt to protect crops or cattle. Often farmers have problems with wolves killing cattle or sheep, as well as deer and moose eating crops.

Hunting is not only a necessary part of the economy, it is necessary to hunt non-hibernating animals, or they often overpopulate. The lack of food in the snow-covered winters of northern New England kills more animals than the hunters do. Also, due to this lack of food, many larger animals (deer and moose) wander into towns and cities, causing dangerous situations.

States often regulate hunting - to keep it humane. The number of animals that can be killed is limited so not to endanger a population. The manner in which animals can be killed is also regulated. For the animals' safety, they cannot be tricked with food and often are not allowed to be trapped.

Treating animals inhumanely is cruel and immoral. But the public has to decide which is more inhumane and immoral, killing a select number of animals to boost the economy or leaving the animals to overpopulate and die in the harsh winters of New England. Keeping the population under control through hunting, helps us economically and also allows the different species to

flourish. ?

This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. This piece has been published in Teen Ink’s monthly print magazine.

Join the Discussion

This article has 3 comments. Post your own now!

Lily">This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. said...
Jan. 11 at 11:45 pm
i love this so much!
Nick5 said...
Dec. 13, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Yes! Yes! YES! Finnally somebody who sees both sides! As outoforder2014 said, we don't cause more damage to the environment than non-hunters do, and we try to humanely kill our quarry.
outoforder2014 said...
Feb. 27, 2010 at 12:44 pm
i tottally agree. not hunting does so much more harm to the animals than hunting does. over population and dying slowly and painfully of starvation sounds a lot worse than being shot and not knowing it happens. its proven that if you aim in the kill zone the animal becomes so tired from loss of blood that they do not feel the pain. and your right hunting is a MAJOR part of the economy. what would we do without the meat we need to survive? dont get me wrong tho. i do believe in preserving our wil... (more »)
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback