PLN #3 Are there any consequences or repercussions if we don’t take notice of the issue?

"The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell raises the question "are there any consequences if we don't take notice of hunting animals?" First of all, a consequence, most of us know, is that species could become endangered or even extinct. When the General and Rainsford start talking about hunting, Rainsford says, "I've always thought that the Cape buffalo is the most dangerous of all big game." This is a prime example of how a species could become extinct because everyone would either want to go kill a Cape buffalo for pride, or for the reason that it’s dangerous and needs to be killed. Next, lifetime hunters could become bored with hunting animals and result to capturing humans and hunting them as a "Game." In the story, General Zarrof says, "When I was only five years old he gave me a little gun, specially made in Moscow for me, to shoot sparrows with." If someone has been doing something for their whole life they would eventually become bored with that hobby. After becoming bored then the person would have to find something more challenging and hunting humans is definitely challenging. Finally, a good consequence is that it could make people realize how animals feel when being hunted. While being hunted Rainsford says, “The hounds raised their voices as they hit the fresh scent. Rainsford knew now how an animal at bay feels." When people think of how an animal feels when they are being hunted it would make most people stop and quit hunting. This could make many hunters stop over hunting rethink what they are doing. Truly, Richard Connell has made a point in his writing that hunting causes consequences, whether good or bad.