Many people are against hunting for it's trophy prize wall ornaments and firearms deemed inhumane to kill animals, but what about the science behind it? People don't like the idea of hunting, but really don't understand how it affects the environment and what benefits it brings to the table in terms of sustainability. Sharon Levy, writing for Hunting Magazine sets out in her article "Hunting Plays a Crucial Role in Maintaining Natural Habitats and the Environment" to prove just this. How do you make the argument hunting is good to a group of people who hate hunting with a passion? Your answer is countless examples from all over the globe that provide rock hard evidence, leaving no room for scientific disagreement. Levy spans over a scope of many environmental concerns, and provides multiple examples of sufficient evidence for each one. It is this relentless use of logos that drives her argument to the end, leaving the reader with the only option, to agree that based upon scientific fact hunting is good for the environment. 

Immediately Levy jumps into her article using logos when she states, "Much of the Allegheny National Forest is now dominated by black cherry trees, and the forest floor is covered in a thick mat of hay scented fern." Levy is giving us an example within the real world to introduce the rest of her article. She writes about one very specific incident, "Now because deer can't eat them they've come to overwhelm nearly all their natural competitors. They are among the few successful survivors of a devastating plague of deer" As most authors do at the end of their articles, she gives one of the "few successful" stories that would be grounds to counter her argument at the very beginning of her article. The success story in this case is one where hunting did not in fact benefit the environment, apart from majority of other scientific studies where hunting does. She immediately acknowledges with this quote that her argument is not true all of the time, but then states throughout the rest of her article that there are countless others that are more numerous that prove her claim. The very first paragraph we read, is devoted to logos and making an argument through use of examples. She doesn't attempt quite yet to establish her credibility, or to guilt the reader into thinking that hunting is good. She merely gives us a real world example. She hits us with facts, undeniable bits of information. She is already not allowing the reader to argue with feelings. Levy is making the reader think factually because this is how she plans to argue her case. 

Levy then continues her logos several paragraphs later. She writes,  "A similar pattern of logging and over browsing is affecting forests from New Zealand to Europe to North America".  Not only has she provided yet another example to back up her argument, but she has broadened to the scope from North America all the way to Europe, making her target audience much larger. Taking her own words, a similar pattern of examples can be tracked throughout her article. Each times she spans to a new concern, or a different heading, she gives an example or two, maybe even three, each attempting to hit a different place either in the country, or the continent for example, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Wisconsin, Eastern United States etc. The point of giving factual evidence from all over is making a point for not just the state Levy wrote the article for, but states all over, even countries. No usage of pathos or ethos could account for scientific data from all over the world, and prove without a doubt that hunting is beneficial. Somebody could say hunting is beneficial, but the words don't always make it true. 

Apart from fact and evidence, Levy' argument lacks in accounting for the audience's prior stance and knowledge. The author is assuming up to this point in her article, that the people reading are either hunters who agree with her, or are extremely in disagreement and are looking for a sufficient argument scientifically based to prove them wrong. What she doesn't take into account is that people who disagree with hunting might not be looking at the scientific basis of it, but rather the morality of it. It could be good for the environment, but that does not necessarily make it right. The only thing she really does to sway this big argument against hunting is writes into her article, "Deer hunting is the basis of Anticosti Island's economy, people living there have no wish to purge their home of introduced deer." An assumption can be made here that if hunting were to be banned on a basis of  "its immoral", this particular economy would fail in a very short amount of time devastating thousands of lives. The difference between scientifically based arguments, and morality arguments, make this article completely ineffective unless both parties are discussing science based facts and research.  Ignoring the morality argument can make this argument less effective depending on the audience, but if you are trying to prove without a doubt that hunting is good for the environment, pathos must be pushed to the backburner and scientific facts and logic must be brought forward, exactly like Levy did. 

Although subtle and hidden, pathos is however found within this article. Levy does a good job of interjecting it eloquently to not seem as though she is trying to convince the reader it is morally right.  She does not try and persuade the reader to hunt. She does not make an accusation that if somebody thinks hunting is wrong they are a bad person. She lets her example of pathos speak for itself in a form of a quotation. She puts an excerpt from an essay called "Thinking Like a Mountain", a paragraph long that talks of an experience Aldo Leopold had, of course after she introduces him and talks of countless awards Mr. Aldo has won in this field. In this essay he talks of a mountain that had been overgrazed by deer with no natural predators to stop the growing population and the effects it had on it. Rather than fact based, Leopold writes a descriptive tale, talking of the mountain as if it were a person struggling with this problem. Aldo writes, "I have watched the face of many a newly wolf less mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death." His tone is very serious, and he ends with the word death, adding severity to the argument not only in the essay written by Aldo but to Levy's article as well. Levy doesn't spend her time writing to make the reader feel bad, but lets this essay she quotes speak for itself and stand-alone. If her argument was trying to argue that hunting is morally good, taking into account feelings and the nature of human beings would need to occur. What levy is attempting to do in her article however, is argue that from an environmental standpoint, it is beneficial for all forms of life if hunting by humans occurs within the bounds of law. This can only be done by experiments that prove it's positive effects. 

Not only does Levy interject pathos, but she also communicates to the reader her ethos. As in any good article based factually, logos cannot stand successfully without some form of reputable source. Unless Levy was a scientist particularly studying the affects of hunting on the environment, she cannot make claims factually based and have the reader believe her unless she gives the reader a reason to believe her. Levy, a freelance writer from California has no scientific experience in this field, therefore she must get her information from somewhere else. She makes numerous quotes from scientists all over the country working at universities such as Walter Carson of the University of Pittsburgh, James McGraw and Mary Ann Furedi of West Virginia University, and Don Waller of the University of Wisconsin Madison. Within all of these, she mentions the scientific studies that provided her evidence and the journals they were published in, further adding to her credibility. Ethos alone in this article, would merely be listing of various sources that have looked into the issue, but logos is what actually allows the reader the knowledge behind the argument. It shows them with numbers and data, that what Levy is arguing is true. No name can illustrate to a reader the effects hunting has on an environment; the reader needs to be provided data.  

Although sometimes dull in nature to those seeking passion and emotion, Sharon Levy's article is nonetheless effective in convincing the reader that hunting is necessary. She touches on every base there is in terms of loss of biodiversity covering 7 different areas, leaving no room for counter arguments based scientifically. Her argument is widespread, well rounded, and thorough in her of use of logos while still hounding in on professional research and compassion from the reader. The question levy doesn't propose, is it morally right to do so? The reader must then wonder if hunting was morally wrong, why was hunting the very first form of substantial food for humanity? And also, is mass murder of animals chemically for mass food production any more righteous? That's for you to decide. 

