To the left (below) the non-valid argument   To the right the contra argument
     
Hunting is natural   Hunting for pleasure rarely happens in nature; animals only hunt for food.
     
Hunters invest time and money in nature   The amount of time a hunter spends in nature and the money he invests in his area does not justify killing off wild animals.
     
City dwellers who rarely visit the countryside have no right to interfere with hunting.   The scarce amount of time that city dwellers  spend in the countryside does not deny them the right to participate in discussions about the welfare of flora and fauna.
     
Hunters help control the numbers of animals in the wild and prevent damage caused by wild animals.   The actions of hunters and Authorities towards natural control of wild animal populations are less than adequate when it comes to prevention of unnecessary killing of animals.
     
The hunt keeps animal populations healthy   Whereas hunting by natural predators certainly does,this statement would only ring true if hunters pursued their prey with their bare hands. A hunter who shoots for pleasure cannot prove that he only eliminates sick and weak specimens.
     
Hunters do all in their power to prevent injuring wild animals.   30-60% of migratory geese die with bullets in their bodies. The most effective way of preventing this, is by not shooting at all.
     
Some biotopes are too small to allow uncontrolled growth of a population of wild animals.   For this reason the Ecological Network of Protected Areas has been introduced, providing a natural connection between biotopes. In such a network, a natural balance can be achieved, making the hunt superfluous. This should also be set as a minimum demand of an Ecological Network.
     
The hunt is acceptable, as along as we eat what we shoot.   Eating a corpse is no justification for killing live animals.
     
Why should  a wildlife manager not enjoy hunting?   Animals are entitled to prevention of unnecessary klilling. Where wildlife is controlled by people who enjoy hunting, sufficient self control and maximalisation of natural alternatives are unlikely.
     
If the fox is not hunted, meadow birds will be endangered.   Of course, but the fox and all other predators of meadow birds keep each other in balance. If there was no hunt, nature lovers would see more of both species. The hunt makes animals shy.
     

This article is part of a series on falsities and demagogy

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups:

meat-eaters
vegetarians
10 myths about Vegans
factory farming
ignoring animal rights
advocating animal rights
experimentation with animals
circus
hunting for pleasure
seal hunt
mink farming
bullfighting
 

 

Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid.

That goes for pro and contra.

We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument.

Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in.

Mail us if you encounter other or new (counter)-arguments.

Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general.

Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate. So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent. Click here for tips on how to react to animal-unfriendly behavior of others.