Far from fair game: Why hunting must end

When we think about how humans treat their fellow animals, few issues seem to polarise opinion as much as hunting.

From fox hunts in the UK to trophy hunting of Africa’s “big five” (lions, elephants, leopards, rhinos, and buffalo), people tend to sit in one of two camps, either vehemently protesting their right to hunt or viewing it as inexcusable and repugnant.

When we examine the practice through a lens of ethics and compassion, it becomes evident that all forms of hunting are fundamentally wrong, irrespective of cultural or societal justifications.

The three types of hunting

Why do some people choose to hunt? Asking this question can help us to understand the motivations that drive hunters so that we’re better able to challenge them.

Broadly speaking, there are three types of hunting:

1. Therapeutic/conservation hunting is when humans kill members of a specific species with the intention of conserving another species or ecosystem (this might be framed as managing overpopulation or culling an invasive species, for example).
2. Subsistence hunting is when humans kill an animal for the purpose of using the carcass for nourishment and material resources.
3. Sport hunting is when humans kill free-living animals for enjoyment or for a sense of personal satisfaction (trophy hunting is a sub-section of this where the hunter collects one or more body parts from their slaughtered quarry as a token of their “success”).

In some instances, there might be a crossover in motivation. For example, New York State in the US has a deer management programme where the local deer population is mostly regulated through hunting. Hunters may well believe that they are hunting for subsistence and conservation purposes and that any element of sport is incidental.

Fox hunters often claim that the practice of chasing a fox to the point of exhaustion until the animal is caught and ripped apart by many dogs is simply “pest control” (a form of conservation hunting) that just happens to be a sport. Of course, usually, in a sport, everyone involved knows they’re a participant, which certainly can’t be said of a hunted animal.

Why do so many people accept hunting as a practice?

Attitudes towards hunting tend to be cultural, social, and political in nature and are often taught to children from birth onwards.

Although some people vehemently oppose hunting in all its forms, many others defend it as a way of life, even if they don’t personally hunt. A common defence of hunting is that humans have done it since the origin of the species and that it’s a way of reconnecting with nature and our ancestral roots.

In one US study, a staggering 93% of the 872 respondents (all outdoor enthusiasts) said that hunting to obtain food is acceptable, and 95% agreed with fishing to obtain food. Eighty percent backed hunting for wildlife population control and 74% said it is acceptable to prevent crop damage. People in the study were less tolerant of trophy hunting or hunting for sport, with around 33% backing it.

In the UK, where gun ownership is limited and heavily legislated, people are less tolerant of hunting. One IPSOS survey found that most British people would prefer certain hunting activities to be or remain banned (85% oppose fox hunting, 87% oppose deer hunting, 90% oppose hare hunting and coursing, 99% oppose dog fighting, and 94% oppose badger baiting).

However, people do see hunting in the UK through a social and political lens—it often represents a culture clash between town and country or the upper and lower classes.

This is just one example that illustrates how social and cultural attitudes and structures drive attitudes to hunting.

While hunting, alongside gathering and scavenging, was once essential for human survival, today, almost all people can survive without needing to kill. The Hadza people of Tanzania are one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer tribes on Earth.

Despite claims to the contrary, modern-day hunters track and kill animals for the challenge and the sport. They do not depend on hunting for survival.

Still, the idea of hunting as a natural right is pervasive in most cultures.

There’s an ongoing acceptance that hunting for subsistence has always been part of human history and is, therefore, inevitable or acceptable; some feel it may even be preferable to animal agriculture. There’s also a general view that conservation hunting is ugly but necessary for the “greater good”, even though there’s a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Despite these enduring attitudes, we believe that there are greater moral truths that make hunting of any form unconscionable.

Sentience and moral consideration

At the heart of the ethical position that hunting is wrong is the recognition of our fellow animals as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, and suffering.

Whether we’re talking about a fox pursued by humans on horseback and dogs or an elephant stalked by hunters, it’s the capacity to perceive and respond to stimuli that grants the hunted animal inherent moral consideration.

To disregard this fundamental aspect of their existence is to deny their right to autonomy and well-being.

In an article titled “Is hunting moral?”, philosopher Joshua Duclos points out that if we believe it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain and death on a sentient being, then hunting is wrong in all circumstances and “the source or the purpose of the harm is irrelevant”. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the hunting is done for conservation, subsistence, or sport.

The only time hunting and killing another being might be morally acceptable, Duclos reasons, is if the individual animal would experience more harm and suffering if they were not hunted. Of course, this raises obvious questions – who gets to decide what constitutes greater harm and suffering? Is there a greater harm than death? What would the animal want? Can humans be trusted to make an objective decision that gives the animal equal consideration of their interests?

Speciesism within hunting

There are numerous ways in which speciesism comes into play within the practice of hunting.

Advocates of hunting will say that many species are predatory and that hunting isn’t exclusive to humans. If it’s wrong for a human to hunt another species of animal, they argue, then surely a lion that kills a gazelle is morally wrong, too? And if the lion isn’t morally wrong, then how can the human hunter be?

Hunters may even try to appear non-speciesist by saying that if humans exist on an equal footing with other animals, they have a right to hunt like their animal kin, too. In the comments section of Duclos’s post, a hunter writes, “I hunt, not because it is human, but because it is animal”.

It’s an oft-repeated position that leaves a vital question unanswered: “What is necessary for survival?”

A lion hunts a gazelle not for pleasure but because they will starve without sustenance. As obligate carnivores, they are unable to obtain all the nutrients they need to survive from vegetation.

But in most modern societies, humans do not need to hunt and kill to survive. Indeed, the fact that so many of us live without consuming or using animal products of any kind proves that it isn’t necessary to eat animal flesh and secretions or use animal by-products to thrive.

Duclos’s article raises another important point about how hunting is speciesist in nature.

If we were to say that humans were the quarry in any of the common pro-hunting arguments, people would condemn the practice outright.

People say they hunt for religious and cultural reasons, to connect with nature and their ancestors, but if their religion asked for human sacrifice instead of the blood of another type of animal, most would quickly lose faith.

Another argument is that hunting protects ecosystems and vulnerable species. Given that humans are the most devastating species on the planet, what if we culled them instead?

Or what if we created a sport where we chased a human through the countryside until they were ripped apart by a pack of dogs and hunters on horseback or felled by a bullet or arrow?

Then, hunting would be called exactly what it is: Murder.

Conservation vs. Exploitation

Proponents of hunting often tout its role in conservation efforts, arguing that regulated hunting can help manage animal populations and fund conservation initiatives (we saw this with the example of the New York State Deer Management Programme mentioned above).

However, this argument conflates conservation with exploitation.

True conservation seeks to preserve biodiversity and protect ecosystems without causing harm to individual animals. Hunting, on the other hand, commodifies wildlife, treating living beings as mere resources to be exploited for human pleasure or profit.

There’s no ignoring the fact that the hunting industry makes a lot of money. In the US, for example, hunting and trapping generated $923.9 million in 2023, while the hunting apparel market is worth a colossal $1.2 billion.

People who support therapeutic hunting say that the money hunters contribute to the economy can directly fund conservation initiatives.

In reality, there are more sustainable and ethical methods to generate money for conservation. These include grants and subsidies, eco-tourism, carbon offsetting and environmental credits, impact investing and sustainable finance, philanthropic donations, corporate sponsorships, membership fees and volunteer contributions, public-private partnerships, and more.

Finances aside, practices such as deer hunting can also actively contribute to the overpopulation they claim to address.

Wildlife agencies in the US, for example, make a significant amount of money through the sale of hunting licenses. But, for the hunting licences to be desirable, the agencies must provide hunters with enough chances to actually hunt. Wildlife agencies regularly cut back forests to create a habitat that is ideal for deer, causing a population explosion.

In addition, the hunters themselves contribute to burgeoning numbers because they tend to kill mature male deer (bucks) who are prized for their large antlers. This reduces competition between the remaining males and leaves the female deer population largely untouched to continue reproducing.

Many experts feel that careful rewilding can more successfully manage wildlife populations than practices such as hunting.

Moral relativism and cultural practices

As we’ve already touched on, hunting is embedded in many cultures. The International Whaling Commission, for example, recognises that the hunting of whales is part of indigenous activity in certain countries.

People are sometimes wary of criticising hunting. To safeguard against cultural imperialism, they recognise that it’s important to explore beliefs and practices through the lens of cultural relativism,

However, cultural heritage should not serve as a shield against ethical scrutiny. Just because something is traditional does not make it morally permissible – we see this with campaigns to end practices such as Female Genital Mutilation or child marriage.

Arguably, there are certain universally recognised ethical values and rights that transcend cultural differences. These include the right to dignity, freedom, equality, and justice.

As societies evolve and our understanding of sentience deepens, we must reevaluate outdated hunting customs that perpetuate harm. It’s speciesist to only consider the impact of hunting on humans; we must consider our fellow animals, too, especially as they’re the subject of the hunt.

The myth of “humane” hunting

Advocates of hunting often argue that it can be conducted in a “humane” manner, minimising suffering through quick kills and ethical hunting practices. Indeed, they will argue that it is far better for an individual animal to die at the hands of a hunter than on a factory farm.

However, the reality of hunting paints a starkly different picture.

Countless animals endure prolonged suffering from wounds inflicted by hunters, only to die agonising deaths hours or even days later. Even in cases where death is swift, the fact remains that the individual animal has lost the only life they will have, a life that mattered to them.

As this article by Emily Moran Barwick asks, “Does the method by which an animal is killed affect the ethics of their death?”

Against the horrific conditions in which billions of farmed animals live and die, Emily Moran Barwick highlights that hunting “holds the gleam of being a far more sustainable, honest way of killing animals for our meals”. (This, despite the fact that hunting is the third most known cause of animal extinction since 1600).

But does this make it right from an ethical standpoint?

It brings us back to the question: would we support hunting if we knew it entailed stalking a human and killing them with a single shot? Would we say the human was “fair game” because we hadn’t kept them in a cage beforehand? Would we support the hunt if all the parts of the hunted person were to be used afterwards?

Absolutely not.

Hunting harms humans too

It is also important to recognise that hunting can harm human communities in a variety of ways.

Where hunting is available as a sport, it can feed the demand for wildlife crimes such as poaching. It can also create conflict when local low-income communities are told not to hunt due to conversation concerns, but people watch affluent tourists being allowed to hunt for sport.

With trophy hunting in parts of Africa, the industry plays into a harmful “saviour” narrative that powerful Western hunters are “the true guardians of the environment and poor communities”, even though the narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Various sources claim that hunting revenues rarely reach local communities. A recent report by Conservation Action Trust explains that jobs associated with trophy hunting tend to be seasonal compared to year-round tourism. Equally, it’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether hunting revenue is invested into sustainability or into community benefits.

Where hunting leads to overpopulation, humans may find their arable land threatened, which can impact livelihoods and health and increase interspecies tensions.

Alternatives to hunting

In all instances, there are alternatives to hunting that do no harm to our animal kin.

In terms of subsistence, veganism demonstrates that it’s possible to be healthy without consuming or using animal-derived products. Critics of veganism say that it’s a Western “privilege”, particularly for the white and wealthy. In practice, however, many cultures worldwide favour a predominantly plant-based diet. The Brokpa tribe in the valley of Ladakh, India, has followed a vegan diet for more than 5,000 years.

Non-lethal methods of conservation and wildlife management include translocation, habitat restoration, and community-based conservation initiatives. These methods offer effective and humane ways to address interspecies conflicts and preserve ecosystems. By embracing these alternatives, we can uphold our ethical obligations to our fellow animals while safeguarding the natural world for future generations.

There are many alternatives to hunting for sport. A growing number of people enjoy photographic safaris, shooting individual animals with a camera rather than a gun. Adventure tourism is also on the rise, where people can enjoy the experience of exploring remote areas or performing activities with a real or perceived element of risk. This gives would-be hunters the thrill of the chase.

The inherent value of life

At its core, the condemnation of hunting stems from a recognition of the inherent value of all life forms.

Every being, from the smallest insect to the largest mammal, has a right to exist free from unnecessary harm and exploitation. There is no instance in which any animal, including humans, would choose to be hunted and killed. If we substitute a human target in any hunting scenario, we can see that hunting is speciesist.

By treating animals as objects of leisure or targets for sport, we diminish not only their intrinsic worth but also our own humanity.

The practice of hunting starkly reminds us of our moral responsibilities towards the natural world. Regardless of cultural norms or societal justifications, hunting represents a betrayal of our most fundamental values of compassion, empathy, and respect for life.

As stewards of this planet, we must strive to protect and preserve all forms of life, embracing a vision of coexistence that transcends the arbitrary boundaries of species and culture.