Why do hunters hunt? A survey was conducted in 1997 which asked hunters to give reasons for why they choose to hunt. According to the survey, there are generally four reasons why hunters practice the activity: 1) To socialize with people who share a common interest; 2) To escape from the pressures of urban living; 3) To get away from the routine of the workplace; 4) To procure food. Only ten percent of hunters surveyed said they did it just for trophy animals and/or to get their names in record books (Hammer, Trudy J.).

Hunters can be divided into three categories: meat, recreational, and nature hunters. Meat hunters hunt strictly for food. This comprises of nearly half the hunting population. Next, there are recreational hunters. For them, the hunting and outdoor experience is far more important than either killing or procuring food. Recreational hunters account for 38% of all hunters. Finally, there are the nature hunters. This is th

e smallest group hunters. Nature hunters view hunting as a spiritual or sacred act (Hammer, Trudy J.).

philosophical) stretch to have animals treated as our equals (Knickerbocker, Brad). "We have quite enough difficulty in persuading or coercing human beings to respect the rights of their fellows, so that all can live in peace. By treating animals as our equals, we would undermine the liberty and dignity of human beings, making the slaughters of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot seem no worse than the daily activity of preparing cattle for the market. That is one kind of moral equivalence we must never allow. Animals are properly property. To misunderstand the rights of animals is to cheapen the rights of human beings," (Epstein, Richard A.).

Hunters claim it is part of the natural order for humans to kill other animals. They question the idea that it is considered immoral for humans to kill other animals, but is natural when one wild animal kills another. Hunters furthermore point out that death as a result of a bullet or an arrow fired by a skilled hunter is far more humane than the death due to the assault of natural predators (e.g. timber wolves, mountain lions), which often eat their prey from the hip up while it is still alive (Hammer, Trudy J.). As for legal rights, at this point most Americans would find it a great legal (not to mention

What has been presented here is actually a limited analysis of the hunting debate. However, the chief concerns (animal rights, population control, and conservation) have been briefly explained. Hopefully, by looking at these arguments, what has been presented here will help one to better understand the issue and to make an educated conclusion about the matter.

Animal rights activists and antihunters are aware of these problems, but they insist that population control is possible without hunting. PETA believes that, "If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals' fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators," (www.peta.org). Hunters disagree with these methods, particularly reducing the animals' fertility - sterilization. While this is a comm

Some common words found in the essay are:
Hammer Trudy, International SCI, Trudy Over-population, , Jeffrey Dahmer, Trudy Hunters, Brad Hunters, Epstein Richard, Liberation Front, Knickerbocker Brad, hammer trudy, animal rights, rights activists, animal rights activists, believe animals, wild animals, population control, hunting debate, nature hunters, wolves mountain lions, legal rights, believe animals rights, natural predators, humans kill animals,
Approximate Word count = 1512
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)