Mason Schmidt Rose Womack
Business Ethics
11//2014
Hunting Ethics

For my research paper I chose to discuss the topic of hunting ethics. I have several reasons for choosing this topic, first and foremost hunting is my biggest passion in life and I see a lot of misconceptions regarding hunting in the media and in the general public, another reason I chose is due to the firestorm that was generated when a Texas cheerleader, Kendall Jones, posted pictures of game animals she had legally taken on an African safari with her father on Facebook. This incident truly showed me for the first time how widespread anti-hunting sentiment was as well as how little people seem to know about it.
In order to counter these sentiments and give people a better understanding of hunting and how it is not unethical, I will state what I believe to be the three most common ethical objections to hunting and then provide rebuttals. The three objections are, hunting is unethical because it disrupts nature and has caused the extinction of numerous species, hunting is unethical because modern technology gives humans an unfair advantage, and finally, the biggest and most common objection, hunting is unethical because it causes animals to experience extreme duress and pain. It is my hope that my arguments will sway you to see that hunting, when done lawfully, is completely ethical.
Objection one is “hunting is unethical because it disrupts nature and has caused the extinction of numerous species”. While it is true that overhunting and poaching have caused the decline of species in the past (U.S. Fish and Wilflife Service), this was when most people harvested wildlife as a major food source before crops and livestock became wildly available, as well as the not known to be mistaken belief that there was an infinite number of animals to feed people forever. Now that we know better and realize that there are only so many animals in the world most nations have passed laws regulating hunting to ensure no more are taken than can be naturally sustained, to date no species has ever gone extinct through the practice of regulated hunting (PBS). This system has proven effective in our native white-tail deer, Canadian goose, and turkey populations which were formerly on the brink of being wiped out but are now very numerous and widespread (The Fayette Tribune) (PBS).
Objection two is “modern technology gives humans an unfair advantage”. While it is true that using high-powered machine guns, infra-red and night vision, and high-powered automatic weapons don’t really leave the animal with much of a chance to escape, I would like to bring attention to the fact stated in my previous argument that hunting is now regulated, and any of the above actions would cost you fines, jail time, and loss of hunting privileges in 38 states. This is because the above actions violate the principle of “fair chase” which is defined as: the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals (Boone and Crocket Club). Fair chase is the foundation on which all modern hunting laws are based and effectively demonstrates that humans do not have an unfair advantage when lawfully hunting.
The third and final objection “hunting is unethical because it causes animals’ extreme duress and pain”. I would like to deal with this is two separate points, the first regarding the stress experienced by the animal, and the second regarding the pain hunting causes. For stress experienced during the hunt, I want to point out that animals are constantly on the lookout for danger even when not hunted by humans, this is a part of everyday life for them and it is necessary for them to evade predation from other creatures. A key objective in most forms of hunting is to have the animal come to you, the complete opposite of a typical predator, in order to do that a hunter must effectively conceal himself to keep his quarry from becoming aware of his presence, it is hard for an animal to experience duress when they aren’t even aware of a predators presence in the first place (Hunter Ethics and Safety).
Pain is an unfortunate aspect of hunting , however before I go any further I would like to ask the reader this, what do you think is the eventual fate of every animal? The answer is usually eaten-alive by a non-human predator, death by starvation, disease, or injuries received in the past, all of these far slower and more agonizing than a gunshot or arrow. This as well as the fact the vast majority of hunters have an ethical drive to make a clean kill to reduce the amount of suffering the animal experiences as much as possible show that this is not a valid objection, even in the rare event that a hunter does not have this ethical concern, he still has a practical reason, an animal that dies quicker is easier to track. So to sum this argument up while hunting can cause pain it is far more merciful than anything nature would bestow on the animal.
My conclusion is this, hunting is not what brings extinction to animal species, it is not unfairly balanced towards humans, and any pain involved is no worse than anything else nature has to offer, as long as done lawfully and the principles of fair chase are employed hunting is completely ethical.

Works Cited

Boone and Crocket Club. n.d. 11 November 2014.
Hunter Ethics and Safety. n.d. 11 November 2014.
PBS. 26 February 2010. 11 November 2014.
The Fayette Tribune. 26 November 2007. 14 November 2014.
U.S. Fish and Wilflife Service. n.d. 11 November 2014.