Regarding McGrath's argument that deer can be brought down with bows and arrows: Very true. They can also be killed with atl-atls, slingshots, and sharp sticks. Are these, from the animals point-of-view, more humane methods? Or would death by starvation, disease or predation be preferable?

With the disappearance of natural predators,this causes overpopulation within the habitat, and the chance of overgrazing becomes very real. This results in erosion and loss of natural resources, and herds under this kind of pressure will be thinned through disease and starvation. For these reasons, population in American National Parks and Wilderness areas will either be controlled by Forest Rangers with rifles, or by hunters with rifles. The first option costs taxpayer money. The second option is a revenue generator, helping thus to preserve these same resources.

As it is difficult for Americans to understand the reasons for strife in Northern Ireland, it may likewise be difficult for residents of the British Isles, with high densities of human population and low densities of wild animal populations, to understand the scope of parks and wilderness in the United States. It is also necessary for those of us who desire more stringent control of the use and type of firearms to realize that, the ethics of hunting aside, hunters can be very valuable allies in this effort.