Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND

H11

"Hunting controls populations."

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about the environment and agriculture, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended on environmental grounds, low-impact exploitation would be acceptable, even if it killed more sentient beings. And it is already being promoted: insect farming, "sustainable" hunting, "sustainable" leather. It is possible to reduce environmental impact and increase exploitation at the same time.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

hunting often helps cause the imbalance it claims to correct: predators were eliminated, species were introduced, and populations are managed so there are animals to hunt. There are real cases of invasive species, such as wild boar in Brazil, where control is authorized by law. But that's managing a human-made problem, not a justification for hunting as recreation. And there are non-lethal methods, such as fertility control and barriers.

Short answer

The imbalance was often caused by humans: predators eliminated, species introduced, populations kept up for hunting. Wild boar in Brazil, for example, is an invasive alien species, and its control has been authorized by the federal environment agency since 2013. But that's managing a problem we created, not hunting for recreation. There are also non-lethal methods, such as contraception, barriers and reintroducing predators, which should be studied and preferred where possible.

For children

Sometimes people take animals to places where they didn't live before, or kill the animals that used to eat them. Then they multiply too much. That's a problem people created. To fix it, we can use ways that don't kill, like fences and medicines that prevent babies, and any control should be done carefully, not for fun.

Ask a question back

"If the problem was created by humans, does the solution have to be killing, or can it be fixing the cause?"

Como pode aparecer

"Wild boars are a pest."

Everyday conversation

"Without hunting, deer starve."

Everyday conversation

"Hunters help nature."

Everyday conversation

"Vegans want to let pests destroy the crops."

Social media

"Population control by culling is a management tool."

Technical version

"Invasive species have to be wiped out to protect native ones."

Everyday conversation

"Trophy hunting funds conservation." (which is I12)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Wild boars are a pest. Without hunting, deer starve."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1In some ecosystems, certain animal populations grow beyond what the environment can support.
P2This causes starvation, disease and damage to vegetation and other species.
P3Hunting reduces these populations.
CSo hunting is necessary for ecological balance.

P1 and P2 are true in some cases. So is P3. The problem lies in the conclusion: the imbalance was often caused by humans, and there are alternatives.

The argument is valid for specific management cases. It fails as a general justification for hunting.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument mixes up different situations:

Situation	Origin of the problem	What to do
An invasive species introduced by humans, such as wild boar	Human action	Management with effective, less cruel methods; preventing new introductions
Overpopulation after predators were eliminated	Human action	Reintroducing predators, contraception, barriers
Sport or recreational hunting	Doesn't solve a problem	Not justified by population control

b
Where the argument breaks
1. The imbalance is often human-made.
Eliminating predators, introducing species and artificial feeding create overpopulation. Hunting treats the symptom, and sometimes sustains it.
2. Hunting can make the problem worse.
In some species, killing individuals stimulates reproduction among those left or scatters groups, spreading the problem.
3. The wild boar case is a management case.
In Brazil, a 2013 regulation by the federal environment agency (Ibama) authorized population control of wild boar, considered an invasive alien species. That's different from hunting for sport, and the control itself should seek the least cruel methods.
4. There are non-lethal methods.
Contraception, barriers, habitat management and reintroducing predators are studied and used in various places.
5. The argument doesn't justify eating meat.
Almost all meat comes from farming, not hunting. Controlling an invasive species says nothing about cattle, pigs and chickens.
6. Protecting what, exactly?
Programs to exterminate invasive species usually aim to preserve a species composition considered "original", not to reduce animal suffering. If the aim were the animals' wellbeing, many of these programs would look different. Valuing being "native" more than the life of someone who feels is a criterion we would never accept among humans.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Ibama, Normative Instruction no. 3/2013 (in Portuguese)	Authorizes population control of the European wild boar, considered an invasive alien species, throughout Brazil	Amended in 2019, with restrictions on control techniques
Massei and Cowan, Fertility control to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts (2014)	Non-lethal methods can reduce populations in some contexts	A review in Wildlife Research
Questão de Ética, vol. V, ch. 8	Analyzes what environmentalist extermination programs aim at	The basis for the last point

d
The strongest counter-reply: non-lethal methods are expensive and slow
The most serious version grants that non-lethal methods exist, but says they're expensive, slow and hard to apply over large areas, and that for invasive species, culling is often the only effective option.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That justifies technical management, not recreational hunting.
Controlling invasive species should be done by professionals, with the least cruel methods possible.
The cost should be borne by those who caused the problem.
And preventing new introductions is essential.
It says nothing about farming animals.
The argument doesn't apply to the meat people buy.
f
Back to the moral question
Managing invasive species is a real and difficult problem, caused by humans. But it doesn't justify hunting as recreation, or raising and slaughtering domestic animals. The moral question remains: when there's no need, what justifies killing?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Unwarranted generalization

From management cases concludes that hunting in general is necessary

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Ignoring the cause

Treats a human-made imbalance as natural

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

The individual treated as a number

The animal becomes part of a population to be controlled

Biases

Motivated reasoning

Control serves as a justification for an activity one enjoys

General literature on motivated cognition

System justification

Culling seems the natural form of management

Linked to B8

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if there are too many animals, killing them is justified".

If it applied to…Stray dogs and catsTap to see

They should be killed, not neutered

Many countries use neutering

If it applied to…City pigeonsTap to see

They should be culled

There are non-lethal methods

If it applied to…Farmed animalsTap to see

The argument doesn't apply: their population is bred on purpose

This is the case of C8

Contradictions

Doesn't apply the criterion to humans.

No one defends reducing human populations by culling.

Ignores the alternatives.

Even when they exist and are workable.

Hunts species that aren't invasive.

The population-control argument doesn't apply to them.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Invasive species and overpopulation can cause real damage to ecosystems, to other species and to agriculture. The wild boar case in Brazil is serious, and ignoring it helps no one. Sometimes control is necessary.

But

But management isn't recreation, and human-made problems call for careful solutions, with less cruel methods and prevention. None of this justifies raising and slaughtering animals for food.