The killing of a non-human animal is not something in and of itself, to which I am opposed. After all, dead animal muscle is a fairly rich and useful source of food for omnivores like most humans, and killing the animal seems to be the most efficient and successful way of obtaining that muscle.
However, there are several elements of modern hunting with which I do not agree. First is the act of hunting for sport. By “hunting for sport,” I mean killing an animal without the intent to use at least some part of the animal for the necessities of human life. Some people hunt for the joy of pursuing an animal through the wild and derive pleasure from the act of killing it. If this is the primary motive for hunting, then this is wrong. It is a strange feature of human psychology that anyone should enjoy ending the life of another biological organism. This same psychology has, in some cases, produced serial killers of humans, and most reasonable people agree that serial killing is wholeheartedly wrong. If the killing of non-human animals with the same psychology is acceptable, then those accepting it fail to see the obvious mental attitude driving the act in the first place.
Also are those who hunt for the purpose of refining their skill or with the intent to flaunt that which they have killed as an object of pride or display. This is clearly hunting for sport, and is wrong. A large and impressive fish, for example, that is caught and killed then subsequently preserved and mounted for show is a waste of the natural resource that was the fish, as well as of the countless elements that were necessary for the fish to grow and mature into adulthood.
Therefore killing an animal so that its muscles may be prepared as a food is not hunting for sport; nor is killing it so that its epidermis may supply necessary protection for humans from the elements of the environment (i.e. clothing). It is crucial to stress, however, the use of furs or skins in the manufacture of fashionable garments is wrong. It is not difficult for a consciously moral person to draw the line between using animal epidermis for clothing necessity and using it for cosmetic “enhancement.” Those purchasing such items are just as accountable for the deaths of the animals as those profiting from their sale, as are those who arrange and commit the kill.
Though if the argument can be made for an obvious division between using animal skins and furs for necessity versus fashion, can a similar argument be used for a division between using animal muscle for consumptory necessity versus culinary novelty? Yes, I think so, but the line is much blurrier. For example, the Native Pre-American hunters of the pre-colonial era no doubt killed animals for the acquisition of food, as this was their only source of meat (and it is fairly well documented that many tribes used the entirety of an animal that was killed and furthermore performed spiritual rights that showed respect for the animal, thanked it for its contribution to their lives, and sometimes asked its permission to sacrifice itself for their good before killing it).
On the other hand, most modern deer hunters in North America do not rely on the muscle they acquire from the deer as their source of meat. Does this mean that it is wrong for them to hunt deer when other meat sources are readily available? No, I do not think this is wrong because the availability of deer is also very high. Deer must be placed among the available meat sources along with other ruminants, poultry, and fish. If I were to claim that it is wrong to kill deer when other meat sources are available, then I would be obliged to argue that it is wrong to kill any animal whatsoever for meat as long other sources are available, and this argument would continue ad absurdum until only one source of meat is available.
Extending this notion further, however, it is clear that culinary novelty crosses the line at some point. Lion muscle, for example, is rarely necessary as a meat source and the availability of lions for slaughter is very low. Lions, after all, have been placed on the vulnerable species list in Africa and the critically endangered list in India, though they were once prolific in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Dishes of lion cost a pretty penny at restaurants that offer them, as does raw lion meat by the pound.
The distinguishing factor then, that allows one animal to be hunted and killed and another to be protected should at least take into account the availability of the animal in question. Animals that are in high supply can be hunted for food without too severe a detriment to their population size.
And this brings up another point: the argument that certain animals should be hunted as a method of population control. This idea is altogether ridiculous. Were it not for the indiscriminate hunting of natural predators such as wolves, foxes, and coyotes, the populations of their prey would likely not have reached such heights. Yes, of course huge numbers of deer and rabbits and the like have a devastating effect on certain vegetation and in other ways set off balance the delicate natural ecosystem. But it should not be our responsibility to remedy this by “controlled” dwindling of the numbers of certain animals. Our killing started the problem, this is true, but the nature of the imbalance is too complex to be appropriately addressed by more killing. We have done enough harm already, and it is never beyond nature’s ability to return the system again to a stable state, whatever that may be.
The second element of modern hunting with which I do not agree is the use of mechanized weaponry, especially guns. This is because although most hunters will argue fervently for their right to hunt, few animals have the vocal capacity to argue for their right not to be hunted. Most animals tend to avoid death if they can help it. In this regard they do have certain advantages over humans, such as hypersensitive senses, acute intuition, outright physical speed, unwavering stillness and camouflage, and an intimate knowledge of their terrain.
For all these things, humans still have their remarkable intelligence, which history has generally shown to result in an unmistakable advantage over other animals. But the use of mechanized weaponry, such as guns, crossbows, telescopic sights, harpoons, fishing nets pulled by motorized boats, and many others, unfairly exacerbates an already unleveled playing field.
Hunting for sport especially seems to be among the only sports in which humans are totally unconcerned with fairness between the players. I will not argue that it requires skill, accuracy, attentiveness, precision, and control to aim a gun at an animal and kill it. But no one should feel proud for doing this; no one should feel as if he or she has “won,” or that he or she has somehow achieved something special or worthy of recognition. The use of mechanized weaponry stacks the cards so unfairly against the animal that killing it with such a device is much more an act of cowardice than of skill.
How, then, can an animal be hunted with a level playing field? The answer lies in a hunter’s ingenuity to fashion weapons from the items available in nature. A great many weapons can be made in this way, such as spears, bows and arrows, traps, trip-wires, pits, slings, darts, and many others. This also means that outside tools cannot be used in the creation of such weapons – knives cannot be used to sharpen points, for example.
This in fact does not entirely rule out all mechanized weapons, as a clever mind can engineer various mechanisms from naturally available resources. A weapon that is so made by a hunter can be re-used on subsequent hunting excursions, but cannot be used by anyone except its maker, just as no animal can borrow another animal’s intuition or keen perception. Such practice puts the hunter on truly equal par with the hunted. They have at their disposal the same resources, and they each have their brain. Neither has an unfair advantage over the other. THIS would be true hunting. I challenge anyone who claims to hunt to attempt this method, and if at the end is discouraged back to his or her gutless and craven ways, then so be it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
