Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

My opponent argues that overpopulation is/should be regulated by hunting.Let me not sound like I'm making a useless analogy, but there are 7 billion humans in the world. I realize that there may be distinct differences between an animal and a human, but does that make it right to control only the animals' populations? Humans consistently ruin the environment through pollutions and deforestation and ultimately ruins other enviroments, so why are humans allowed to damage resources but animals, which need this to survive, are not able to do this? Animals need other animals and crops to live, humans do not need to deplete this earth of its resources to live. Do I advocate hunting of humans by this statement? No, hunting should be illegal. If you would like to debate thay humans are the smarter and superior of the species, refer to [1] stating that we are actually ranked #3 in this category. "Slaughterhouses... BRED SPECIFICALLY TO BE KILLED... hunters are actually aware of what they are doing... defending their own human properties and rights."Slaughterhouses, I must tell you, do not apply to the rule of hunting. Hunting applies to wild animals and game, animals that are not usually domesticated, that do not have constant contact with humans. You can argue that these animals are not domesticated, but you cannot reject the fact that they are adept to life surrounded by humans. Slaughterhouses get their produce from farms and breed them in the factory. But, like I said, this is not considered hunting. Also, I would like to point out that the slaughterhouse workers also know what they are doing and are just defending their right to live, if you want to talk about rights. However, I do not see how hunting correlates to human rights. Let me explain this. Animals live off of the Earth while humans live in artificial homes with artificial electronics and artificial clothes. The basis of my argument is that animals live and depend on nature while humans live with artificiality. The inject hormones in animals and foods to grow them in order to get the most bang for their buck, persay.My opponent argues that some people rely on hunting for survival.While this is fact, does it overrule the statement that hunting should be illegal? Many of the people that rely on hunting live in the Arctic regions, and these peoples rely on hunting due to the impossibility of agriculture in their region. But, I ask the same question, does this overrule the fact that animal hunting should be illegal? I propose that it does not. Now, as we all are aware, food does not start and end on your plate. Food comes from one place and is travelled to another to end up on your plate. Now, you stated that Inuits are dependent on hunting. That is true, but that can be easily changed if someone is willing to distribute food to their regions. The Inuits, therefore, are only reliant on hunting because they have no food being distributed to them as it is to us. To fix this problem, and in turn making hunting illegal under this consensus, we just need to distribute foods that help a healthy diet for these peoples. Sources:[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...;Hormoneshttp://www.webmd.com...;