By Hannah Schoen
 
The hunting season is starting up again. People will go out and kill animals, maybe stuff the heads of their victims and put them on a wall in a living room. Maybe the meat of the animal will end up on a dining room table. Some consider it a sport. Some even say it’s great for the environment. But others consider it “cruel and unnecessary.” So, who’s right? Is recreational hunting beneficial or bad?
 
Hunting can be good for the environment. In the article from scientificamerican.com titled “Does Hunting Help or Hurt the Environment?” the author states that hunting helps kill of a surplus of a species. For some weird reason, deer, for example, are reproducing at an astonishing rate.  They could overpopulate the earth without proper regulation. And rising reproduction rate + popular hunting subject = better for everyone.
 
People argue that hunting is hazardous and should be avoided if at all possible. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, posted an article on their website titled “Why Sport Hunting is Cruel and Unnecessary.”   In one paragraph subtitled, “Pain and Suffering,” it explains that most animals that are shot are not retrieved by hunters. Most of those animals are not in fact dead. They are only wounded, and they suffer and die. All that pain and suffering for literally no reason. They are left alone to die. How sad is that? In that same paragraph. It explains that hunting breaks up animal families, leaving the other animals in the family to suffer and eventually die. Wow, so much unnecessary death. How unfortunate.
 
 
There is a lot of evidence for both sides of this issue. But when you’re talking about animal slaughter, you need to look closer, and have every piece of the puzzle. Because life is not ours to waste. What’s your standpoint?