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.

        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”.

        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”.

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.

解析：B。根据题干中的sounds ironic可定位至第一段最后一句。该句表示，尽管听起来很讽刺（ironic as it sounds），但是一些人已经把捕猎看作是一种自然的方式，用来减少那些繁殖能力超出环境承载能力的被捕食类动物的种群数量，就因为很多捕食性动物已经被人类消灭殆尽。由此可知，有些人认为狩猎可以解决某些动物数量过多的问题，而不同种类动物数量的失衡正是人类狩猎所引发的问题，这听起来很讽刺，故B项符合题意，为正确答案。

错项排除：A项利用原文中出现的either predator or prey at some point in its evolution作干扰，但文中提到的是，几乎所有的动物——包括人类——在进化的某个阶段都曾是捕食者或是被捕食者，并非作者认为讽刺的内容，故排除。C项在原文中没有提及，故排除。D项利用原文第一段末尾的environment作干扰，但原文说的是一些人把捕猎看作是减少那些繁殖能力超出环境承载能力的被捕食类动物数量的一种很自然的方式，并没有说环境变化和物种数量的关系，故D项排除。