First, I think (in part from what I am reading here) most hunters have long since become comfortable that their hunting, especially when truly associated with re-balancing populations that man has sent out of balance, is correct, constructive and ethical. In the process they have become almost immune to what they perceive the non-hunters think. Yet there remains a level of defensiveness around the morality of hunting that varies from hunter to hunter.
Well if youíre baiting
I'll bite. I hunt because I have always hunted; my father, his father and his father's father hunted. There is no moral or ethical decision involved with it, it is what it is. The act of taking an animals life for food or sport is of no more consequence to me than swatting a fly. I don't care what non hunters think about me or my hunting as I am certain they are wrong about a whole host of other issues. Their sanitized version of reality so is perverted by the schools they attend the news media they watch that they have no concept of the real world and the dangers that are truly out there. I hope it never comes but someday, and maybe soon, the real world is going to come crashing in and I wonder if faced with the prospect of starvation or killing an animal for food what their morals would be then?
But here's the real point. The true focus and passion of the non-hunter is around the proliferation of guns and has little to do with the morality of hunting. The non-hunter sees, or reads about, guns killing people in their neighborhoods or in another area of town and they feel there should be no right to have a gun when the only plausible target is another human being.
The hunter believes they have a constitutional right to bear arms and, via the ARA, seeks to protect that right and with a not unreasonable fear of creeping control, shows no willingness to understand the fears and plight of city dwellers.
So, in summary, the non-hunters negative view of hunting is based in part on a non-understanding of the value of hunting and their true passion is directed against their perception that hunters have unfairly blocked their ability to control guns in situations where only humans are targets.
So now we can get down to it. Guns do not kill people by themselves, when a murder occurs they do not put the weapon on trial the put the person on trial that committed the murder. Anti gun people want to blame the criminal act on the gun and not the person who committed the crime. If all guns were removed from us would there be no more killing? Of course not. But as long as the problem can be placed on the gun we donít have to examine the real social issue at the heart of most crime. Itís not that I donít appreciate the plight of ďcity dwellersĒ but the notion that they would be safer with out guns is false. Itís not that we believe we have a constitutional right, we do have a right to keep and bear arms, and it is no longer up for debate.
Now, if you want to deal with some other behavior that I either don't understand or find irrational and comment as you will here's a few thoughts.
Why and what is the defense of killing: frogs, squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons, possum and many bird species in large numbers? .
I reaaly don't know what to say to that as I don't know that I have ever met a Chipmunk hunter and I'm not much on eating opossum.
Sorry to get in on your thread so late but better late than never. Anyway welcome to the site from Tennessee.