- The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies
- List of Contributors
- Animal Rights
- Animals in Political Theory
- Animals as Living Property
- The Human-Animal Bond
- Animal Sheltering
- Roaming Dogs
- Misothery: Contempt for Animals and Nature, Its Origins, Purposes, and Repercussions
- Continental Approaches to Animals and Animality
- Animals as Legal Subjects
- The Struggle for Compassion and Justice through Critical Animal Studies
- Interspecies Dialogue and Animal Ethics: The Feminist Care Perspective
- Cetacean Cognition
- History and Animal Agencies
- What Was It Like to Be a Cow?: History and Animal Studies
- Animals as Sentient Commodities
- Animal Work
- Animals as Reflexive Thinkers: The Aponoian Paradigm
- The Ethics of Animal Research: Theory and Practice
- The Ethics of Food Animal Production
- Animals as Scientific Objects
- The Problem with Zoos
- Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
- Practice and Ethics of the Use of Animals in Contemporary Art
- Animals in Folklore
- Animals and Ecological Science
- Staging Privilege, Proximity, and “Extreme Animal Tourism”
- Commensal Species
- Lively Cities: People, Animals, and Urban Ecosystems
- Animals in Religion
Abstract and Keywords
A basic tool of scholarly ethics is argument analysis—the process of evaluating the soundness of the premises and the validity of arguments that underlie a particular ethical claim. We apply that technique to the controversial concern about the appropriateness of hunting wolves. Advocates of wolf hunting offer a variety of reasons that it is appropriate. We inspect the quality of these reasons using the principles of argument analysis. Our application of this technique indicates that wolf hunting in the coterminous United States is inappropriate. A value of argument analysis for public discourse is its transparency. If we have misapplied the principles of argument analysis, critics will readily be able to identify our error. While this particular application of argument analysis is contingent on details particular to wolves and the desire to hunt them, this essay has the addition value of illustrating one of the basic tools used in scholarly ethics.
John Vucetich is Associate Professor, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University.
Michael P. Nelson is Ruth H. Spaniol Chair of Renewable Resources and Lead Principal Investigator for the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest at Oregon State University; and Senior Fellow with the Spring Creek Project for Ideas, Nature, and the Written Word.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.