section_path: Opposition
section_name: Opposition
paragraph_text: Opposition
  
  It has been argued by animal rights activists that killing animals for sport is unethical, cruel, and unnecessary. They note the suffering and cruelty inflicted on animals hunted for sport: "Many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families." Animal rights activists also comment that hunting is not needed to maintain an ecological balance, and that "nature takes care of its own". They say that hunting can be combated on public lands by "spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas". Animal rights activists also argue that hunting is speciesist:
  
  Whether hunters try to justify their killing by citing human deaths caused by wild animals, by making conservationist claims, by claiming that it's acceptable to hunt as long as the animals' bodies are eaten, or simply because of the pleasure it brings them, the fact remains that hunting is morally unacceptable if we consider the interests of nonhuman animals. Hunted animals endure fear and pain, and then are deprived of their lives. Understanding the injustices of speciesism and the interests of nonhuman animals makes it clear that human pleasure cannot justify nonhuman animals' pain.