Animals Rights: Right To Hunt Vs. Animal Rights

Animal Rights
Introduction:
Along the list of ‘rights movements’, the animal rights movement has its place. Just as the internet has helped further the cause of the protesters of of wall street in the 2000’s and the “Black Lives Matter” movement in 2015, Animal Rights activists has flourished in the readily available spreading of information. Earthlings, an informative documentary on the suffering of animals, has more than half a million views on YouTube alone. Animal suffering stems from regions such as the industry and research and testing. The meat industry is a billion-dollar industry. Not only is it a billion-dollar industry, it’s also slaughters upwards of 10 billion animals a year. In recent years, top poultry producer Tyson has faced

Animal Rights On the topic of Animal Rights, subjects such as hunting can be addressed clearly as an unnecessary sport by many animal rights groups, however Jim Amrhein of The Daily Reckoning has brought to light many valuable points on the right to hunt. According to the Daily Reckoning website, the publication is a daily stock market observation stressing the economy, world politics, and travel. Mr. Amrhein reveals various statistics not only for the right to hunt, but also facts of the negligence of some well-known animal rights groups. In Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights, Jim Amrhein speaks to the fact that hunting is not as detrimental as many animal rights groups portray it as. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other public sources presented by Mr. Amrhein, Sportsmen has contributed 4.2 billion dollars to conservation through a federal excise tax on firearms, gear, and ammunition since 1937. This money is allocated to public-use of purchasing, preserving, and maintaining land for state parks. Jim also takes an environmental point of view, pointing out that the animals living within the parks are served better when the parks are well-maintained. He also mentions Animal Rights groups themselves, specifically PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Taking data from PETA’s 2004 financials, Amrhein shows a 29-million-dollar revenue. Amrhein also shows show the monies were allocated for media interviews, organized demonstrations, coverage on major television networks, and educational materials; his point being the lack of money distributed for wildlife preservation, not even for endangered