Shooting generates much needed employment and economic benefits to rural communities. How would they do this without shooting?
That argument assumes that someone who can no longer shoot for sport because it’s been made illegal is going to burn his money instead. Shooting can generate economic benefits but these need to be compared with the social and economic benefits from alternative land uses before drawing any conclusions that shooting for sport is actually the best use of the land. We have also to look at the moral issue and whether killing live animals for sport is an acceptable way of generating income. Research has shown that more people would be willing to spend money watching and photographing wildlife than killing it and we would urge rural communities to utilise this.
