Why Is Sport Hunting Cruel And Unnecessary?

The issue of hunting, whether it be for sport, for food, or for money, the issue has been separated into two opposing sides. This is expressed in two contrasting articles, one by PETA titled "Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary," which is strongly against the idea of hunting. The other, from the Hoover Institution titled "How Hunting Saves Animals," using hunting as a means for animals' protection. Both articles provided logical and understandable arguments for the uses of hunting in the sense of conservation, though the acritical by PETA lays out the information they have in a much clearer and persuasive fashion.
Though it was not as strong as the other, The Hoover Institute brings up many valid argument's that are not discussed by PETA's. In the essay, they told about an auction they held, "They expected to raise as much as $1 million from the auction with 100 percent of the proceeds going to rhino conservation efforts." This passage discussed auctioning off the right to hunt this endangered species and how it was helping the wildlife preserve through the raising money to go towards conservation. The Institute described this way of hunting in a "for the greater good" sense. By using the …show more content…
This is almost a complete opposite of what the Hoover Institute discussed in the other article. This made what they were saying seem more factual in comparison to the other. "Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches." This means that preservers or any privately-owned land, such as talked about in the Institute's article, many of them can't be stopped in any legal situation. Which is where their argument lost its rhetoric. By only talking about how privet land owners don’t follow the same rules as public land, they lost what they had in a sound