Nickolas Kristof begins his article with a brief quiz to test the reader’s general knowledge, which he soon seeks to challenge. He then presents his main argument, using an interesting title that combines the concepts of “picking up a rifle” and “environmental balance”. By doing this, the author clearly expresses his firm belief that hunting can effectively address the issue of environmental balance. Essentially, his solution to this problem is achieving environmental balance through hunting, which can be seen as the central thesis of his essay. Immediately, the author addresses the issue he aims to provide a solution for in his argument: the overpopulation of deer poses a greater danger to humans than common predators. He supports this claim by highlighting the damage this issue is already causing to the environment and providing relevant statistics. For instance, he mentions that the problem not only leads to ticks and Lyme disease but also results in direct fatalities. According to a study in the insurance industry, deer cause about 150 deaths and $1 billion in damage each year through car crashes nationwide.
The author compares this number to the claim that predators like bears, wolves, and cougars cause only about 3 to no deaths per year. It is evident that the author wants to highlight the unnatural characteristics caused by the current environmental imbalance. Although Nickolas Kristof firmly believes hunting is a logical solution, he acknowledges that some may view it as a primitive or “barbaric” approach. However, Kristof continues his argument by suggesting that people may be more comfortable with the decline in deer population due to factors like disease or hunger. This credible author includes opinions from environmentalists who believe “hunting could be green”. Focusing on the environment, Kristof emphasizes how hunting can have a more positive impact compared to activities like logging, mining, or oil drilling.
I fully agree with the author’s argument that humans should take on the responsibility of controlling deer populations if we eliminate a large number of predators, as this will help maintain balance. Kristof emphasizes that it is our environmental duty to assume this role, and if we fail to do so, the collisions with humans will only worsen. Additionally, I agree with Kristof’s observation that in today’s society, hunting is often seen as barbaric rather than necessary for ecological balance. The author acknowledges that some individuals may find his proposal illogical due to their ignorant stance on the matter. As part of everyday life, Kristof humorously mentions that hunting is not advisable in suburban areas and does not expect soccer moms to install gun racks in their minivans. I believe his use of irony effectively conveys his opinion on the need to kill animals in order to achieve positive environmental outcomes.The Author presents a claim backed up by a real-life example, illustrating the potential consequences if the problem is not addressed correctly. The Author proposes a logical solution for dealing with this issue.
