2020年07月六级第1套仔细阅读 Passage 2 原文翻译及答案解析

Is hunting good or bad for the environment? Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species -- including humans -- has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to reduce the herds of prey animals that now reproduce beyond the environment's carrying capacity.

狩猎对环境是好是坏？像许多热门话题一样，这个问题的答案取决于你问谁。一方面，有人说，没有什么比狩猎更自然的了，实际上几乎每个动物物种——包括人类——在其进化过程中都曾是捕食者或猎物。而且，尽管听起来讽刺，由于人类消灭了许多动物捕食者，一些人将狩猎视为减少猎物群体的自然方式，这些猎物现在繁殖超出了环境的承载能力。

On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as savage, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals' Voice, hunting "causes immense suffering to individual wild animals..." and is "irrationally cruel because unlike natural predation (捕食), hunters kill for pleasure..." He adds that, despite hunters' claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters' license fees are used to "manipulate a few game species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance."

另一方面，许多环境和动物倡导者认为狩猎是野蛮的，主张杀死动物在道德上是错误的，无论实际考虑如何。根据位于加利福尼亚州的动物之声组织的Glenn Kirk，狩猎“给个别野生动物带来巨大痛苦……”并且“非理性残忍，因为不像自然捕食，猎人为了乐趣而杀戮……”他补充说，尽管猎人声称狩猎保持了野生动物种群的平衡，但猎人的执照费被用来“操纵少数猎物种群过度繁殖，以牺牲更多非猎物种群为代价，导致生物多样性、遗传完整性和生态平衡的丧失。”

Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the vast majority of hunted species —— such as waterfowl, rabbits, upland birds and mourning doves —— "provide minimal nutrition and do not require population control."

除了道德问题，其他人认为狩猎不实用。根据美国的仁慈协会，绝大多数被猎物种——如水禽、兔子、高地鸟类和哀鸽——“提供的营养极少，且不需要种群控制。”

Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature's Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting "designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both" —— what Varner terms 'therapeutic hunting' —— is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting —— both of which only benefit human beings —— is not.

作者Gary E. Varner在他的书《In Nature's Interests》中建议，某些类型的狩猎可能在道德上是正当的，而其他类型则可能不是。狩猎“旨在确保目标物种的整体福利、其生态系统的完整性，或两者兼而有之”——Varner称之为“治疗性狩猎”——是可辩护的，而维持生计和运动狩猎——两者都只使人类受益——则不是。

Regardless of one's individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2006 show that only five percent of Americans —— some 12.5 million individuals —— consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.

无论个人立场如何，如今狩猎的美国人比近年来少。美国鱼类和野生动物管理局在2006年收集的数据显示，只有5%的美国人——约1250万人——如今自认为是猎人，低于2001年的9%和1996年的15%。

Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc. found that eighty percent of respondents agreed that "hunting has a legitimate place in modern society," and the percentage of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.

然而，公众对狩猎的支持正在上升。2007年由Responsive Management Inc.进行的一项调查发现，80%的受访者同意“狩猎在现代社会中有合法地位”，而表示不赞成狩猎的美国人比例从1995年的22%下降到2007年的16%。

Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both deplore urban sprawl and habitat destruction.

或许与公众趋势一致，环保领袖越来越多地倡导猎人和环保团体之间的合作：毕竟，两者都谴责城市扩张和栖息地破坏。