Running head: THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 1

The Real Truth Behind Hunting

Tyler J. DeBeauclair

Saginaw Valley State University

Life in Michigan can be represented by four seasons and simplified further to the

changing of the leaves. Along with the falling of leaves and a drop of temperature, debates spark

over hunting. This is due to the coinciding of fall and hunting season opening. Hunters go out

yearly to track and kill game. Some do this out of need and necessity while others hunt for sport.

I believe that hunting is morally acceptable under circumstances where all the animal is used, the

correct training is practiced, and a genuine need is exhibited; therefore, hunting for population

control is acceptable, and the act of trophy hunting is morally wrong. Critics will express the

belief that hunting is not needed in our world today, and the killing of another animal is a cruel

and unforgivable act. I am a hunter and understand that I have a unique perspective on this. This

insight will be used to convey the place of hunting in society today, and I will use my

experiences to give non-hunters a better understanding of this topic.

Critics first and main argument against hunting is that inflicting pain and killing innocent

animals is immoral. I believe that hunting out of necessity is killing animals with intention to

supply nourishment. In some cases this is done to supply materials for the hunter and his or her

family. In “The Practice of Hunting as a Way to Transcend Alienation from Nature” Native

Americans are brought up and their view on hunting. This article by Lara Tickle says

“Agreements that allow Native American tribes to hunt whales are justified, in part, by the

subsistence value the animals have for the people who hunt them. In contrast, sport hunting

refers to intentionally killing wild animals for enjoyment or fulfillment” (Tickle, 2019). This

statement explains how it is morally acceptable to kill out of need for food and materials. This

also brings into question the term hunter. This term does not necessarily mean “moral or

immoral”. The intention and reason behind hunting matters. Hunters who go after animals for the

thrill, cause wish to mount a huge pair of antlers, or just want a visual prize to show off are
THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 3

trophy hunters. Trophy hunting is morally wrong, but these hunters still fall under the umbrella

of the term “hunter”. Therefore, the true argument should not be over whether hunting is right or

wrong. It should be debated over whether having correct reasons for hunting still makes it

immoral.

With all of this considered, the argument against the harm of animals is invalid. Hunting

is natural whether a hunter’s goal is to put food on the table or acquire resources. To further

disprove the point, I would argue that if inflicting unwanted harm is necessarily wrong, then the

source of the harm is irrelevant. Logically, anyone who would argue this viewpoint should also

argue against “survival of the fittest” and the course of nature. For example, when a fox kills a

squirrel it will cause more damage and harm to the squirrel than any hunter would. One must

understand that the world revolves around killing and eating of other organisms. That is the way

life works and nothing will change that.

That point is taken to an extreme, and when present with that logic there are not many

people are willing to go that far. Instead, many critics would argue that it is not the harm of

animals that is immoral. They say that it is the unnecessary and preventable harm that is unjust.

Going back to the prior analogy, these critics have an issue with hunters killing a fox but have

zero problem with a fox killing a squirrel. This is because the fox needs to survive right? Today

it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is

necessary for animals. The argument against “unjust harm” for them means that hunting should

only take place when directly tied to a hunter’s survival. This is incredibly hard to prove or

argue. How does one prove or show that a hunter is completely “dependent” on killing for

survival? That is a slippery slope and shows that people against hunting do have a leg to stand
THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 4

on, but I would counter by stating that a personal experience or better understanding of hunting

could change their mind.

In “Rise of the Human Predator”, an article from the Scientific American, a recent study

conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department is discussed. It states that only 13.7 million

Americans ages 6 or older are hunters (Wong, 2014). This equaled to around 6% of Americans at

the time, and the only requirements to be classified as a hunter where the participation in killing

of wild animals or game (2014). This shows that a tremendous majority of the population has no

experience with hunting, and those arguing against hunting most likely have not heard both sides

of this debate. The first step to understanding a discussion over the morality of hunting and

formulating an opinion is being informed. This requires one to have an understanding or

visualization. Many critics of hunting argue that it is not done out of necessity, but rather for

sport.

They bring up TV shows that show hunters yelling in joy after killing, or the countless

social media posts and pictures of a successful hunt. Hank Shaw goes into the other side to this

argument in his article “On Killing”. He begins with explaining the countless number of years

that go into the development of shooting skills. On top of shooting, a lot of time is put into

scouting areas for animals and baiting the hunting grounds. Examples of baiting for the non-

hunter would be the laying of corn in a field to attract deer or setting up anywhere from ten to

one-hundred decoys (fake replicas) the entice water fowl to land nearby. To summarize, the

article explains that hunting is more often unsuccessful than it is successful. Even with adequate

skill, a hunter doesn’t control his luck over seeing prey and is not guaranteed to hit a shot if prey

is seen. In the conclusion of his point Shaw says that “We are not being callous, rejoicing in the

animal’s death. It is a hard-wired reaction to succeeding at something you have been working for
THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 5

days, months, even years to achieve” (Shaw, 2011). This is the real reason that hunters are joyful

when they kill or bring down an animal. We are all humans and experience joy when we finally

accomplish a task that has required hours upon hours of hard work.

Another argument in support of hunting is the population control argument. There are

cases of animal populations increasing to unsafe levels. Unsafe levels can refer to when an

overwhelming number of one species is in turn wiping out another species. A second explanation

for population control would be a scenario where an animal population will not have enough

food to make it through the winter. In these circumstances’ humans will increase the number of

animals that can be killed legally. This is done to ensure that the surviving animals have plenty

of food throughout the winter and don’t suffer. Humans have decided that it is more humane to

kill a minority so the majority can thrive instead of having the population as a whole suffer.

I will explain this in relation to the deer population in Michigan as well as go over the

legal restrictions to hunting to ensure the safety and continuation of populations. In Michigan

and other states that legally allow hunting there are regulations. Prior to a hunting season it is

required that you have completed hunter’s safety, have legally registered your weapon, and

legally applied for a hunting permit. Once these are all completed a hunter has the ability to

purchase what are known as “hunting tags”. There is a limit on these per person and per state

which is the legal limit. Penalties for shooting without a license or going over legal limits can

include jail time and thousands of dollars in fines. These are in place to deter overhunting and the

unnecessary killing of wildlife.

Earlier this year, the city of Ann Arbor had its fourth deer culling. A group of

professional snipers where hired to kill 112 deer in the parks and Ann Arbor area. There are two

reasons this was done. The first was to ensure the survival and good health of the deer population
THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 6

through the winter. The second reason was backed by scientifically research saying that when

deer population numbers approach a certain point in highly populated areas there is a direct

correlation to a drastic increase in automobile accidents. This was met with public outrage and

protests ensued. These protesters were not properly educated, and don’t understand that this act

was in the best interest of the deer population. Michigan is not even close to only state or even

country to perform acts such as this.

In the article “Managed hunting can help maintain animal populations” which was put

out by the University of Cambridge the Ibex population in Switzerland was studied. A team of

researchers studied the Alpine Ibex which is a distant relative of the goat. This animal is a

common mark for trophy hunters as they have beautiful curved horns. They performed this study

by “examining the horn size of more than 8,000 ibex harvested between 1978 and 2013, to

determine whether average horn growth or body weight had changed over the last 40 years”

(University of Cambridge, 2018). The results showed that Ibex were more likely to die if they

had longer horns, and these researchers proposed a solution to help increase the number of Ibex

to more sustainable levels. Researchers proposed that tighter restrictions be placed on hunting

these wild goats. Once these were in place, they observed the following year and found that with

“tight controls placed on the hunt by the Swiss authorities, hunters tend to shoot as few animals

as possible, to avoid violating the rules and incurring large fines” (2018). This was an inverse

example of culling but had a similar effect in bringing a population levels to an optimal point.

In conclusion, hunting animals for necessity is morally correct. It is a requirement for my

own personal justification that all of the animal be used. If this is not the case, then I consider

that act of killing a waste of life. One thing that I believe is agreed upon by both sides is that the

act of trophy hunting is immoral and should not be done. The topic of hunting, and the ultimate
THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND HUNTING 7

killing of other creatures is a touchy subject. A lot of people, for multiple different reasons, have

an emotional attachment. This can make debating challenging and a viewpoint should always be

presented respectfully. I believe that the logic and reasoning laid out should be the deciding

factor in your choice to support hunters as I do.

References

Shaw, H. (2011, December 7). On Killing. Hunter-Angler-Gardner-Cook, Retrieved from

https://honest-food.net/on-killing/

Tickle, L. (2019). The Practice of Hunting as a Way to Transcend Alienation from Nature.

Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 17(1), 22-37.

University of Cambridge. (2018, May 21). Managed hunting can help maintain animal

populations. Phys.org. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2018-05-animal-

populations.html

Wong, K. (2014, April). Rise of the Human Predator. Scientific American, 310(4), 46-51.