Alsatian

It sounds like you are having to argue two different positions in the same paper. That is kind of tough. Also, I assume PETA is not advancing solely economic arguments, so a solely economic response may not be very successful.

I like to guess the objections people have against hunting and develop my response to those hypotheticals. Here are some examples.

(1) Sport hunting makes species extinct.

Response: No. Legal sport hunting occurs in a context of carefully defined and enforced bag limits. If a species of duck is fragile, that species of duck will not be allowed to be hunted or will have a very low bag limit and maybe a more narrowly circumscribed hunting season: E.G., Canvasback ducks. Likewise with elk, deer, bighorn sheep, moose, etc. The bag limits and the numbers of permits in states are allocated to manage the population of these animals to desirable levels. For example, if you have too many deer, you have too many car-deer encounters. If you have too many elk, these elk cause too much economic harm to ranchers and property owners when they are pushed down out of the mountains in winter time. Now, PETA may take the position that these concerns of the general population -- avoiding car-deer collisions, avoiding depradations of elk on private property -- subordinate the value of animals to those of human beings, but that is not really an issue with hunters. The population figures are not set specifically with hunters in mind in many cases.

(2) Killing animals through sport hunting is cruel.

Response: Relative to what? All animals and human beings are going to die. Animals in the wild rarely die a peaceful death in a comfy bed. Death is often being ripped apart in the jaws of a predator, starving to death in a time of over population/under supply of food, or from exposure to cold. The issue of cruelty must be weighed in the balance with what inevitably comes their way. Which is the less painful -- and hence less cruel -- death? Getting shot with a bullet in good health and dieing within about a minute or dieing as described above in the wild?

(3) Killing animals merely to put a trophy on the wall is morally wrong.

Response: Last I checked, all the states I hunt in have laws against wanton waste of game animals. You are required by law to harvest the meat of these game animals, care for the meat, and put the meat to good use. Thus the phrase "merely to put a trophy on the wall" is not a valid hypothesis from the get go. Indeed some hunters are intensely interested in taking a trophy -- an above average male specimen. Even then, they have to put the meat to good use. Is doing the right thing morally (harvesting and consuming the meat) wrong because your motivation is not pure (just compying with the law)? I don't think so. Also, my experience is that only a small proportion of hunters are in it as trophy hunters. Without any specific information to back me up, I would say 20% or less of the elk hunters are in it for trophies. Now, just because you KEEP the antlers or get a head mounted doesn't equate to being a trophy hunter. Colorado requires you to harvest the antlers of your bull elk to demonstrate compliance with antler restrictions and obliges you to keep this proof until your meat reaches its final processing point -- my house, because I butcher my own meat. Am I a trophy hunter because then I take those antlers and mount the skull cap on a panel of wood and put it up on the wall, making it as pretty as I can? I think not.

Personally I don't think PETA has any reason to have a special greviance with hunters, for the reasons given above. I would understand their principles to be that killing animals under any conditions -- including in a commercial slaughter house of domestically produced steers -- is morally wrong. If you are a vegetarian and will not eat meat . . . I have no argument to fight against this moral position. If you are not a vegetarian, however, you have no cause to hold anything against hunters.

By the way, I'm not saying I cannot advance an argument to morally justify eating meat, I'm just saying I feel no need to do so and have not invested the thinking time to get there.