the impact of hunting for food is so far below the impact of industrial agriculture and other things, it’s fine

hunting for food is ethical, over killing, killing for profit, killing for sport are not.

A lot of people bring up the moral problems with eating meat, but I have barely any such issue in regard to wild animals, especially those overpopulating areas.

Of course, if a company ever made a big product out of reselling venison, we’d probably get perverse incentives where someone would start trapping and farming them. So, it ends up just being a homey domain of hobbyist hunters and all their family friends - but one I respect a lot.

Go hunt to your hearts content. We’re all part of the cycle.

I completely agree with you on every point.

I have never understood trophy hunting and frankly it pisses me off. I look for animals that taste good, which means reasonably young, not some tough old moose bull I have to hold my nose to eat.

And we probably feed a couple hundred deer on our grain bags all winter, I think they can donate one or two to my freezer.

I get a lot of down votes for this but it’s important since we wiped out natural predators. One of my favorite days was cooking up some venison my students; we had a field day or whatever and no the meat came from another hunter.

I almost died when a a bunch crossed over the highway in the middle of the night. Tokyo drift instincts kicked in lol. Thankfully a buddy bought a Jeep XJ and it saved his ass.

Then there’s this ongoing argument against firearms; do you shoot the deer that ran into your car or beat it to it’s death with a blunt object? And I mean this in a humane question, otherwise you leave it die suffering in pain.

I only go for kill shots. None of this trophy bullshit. I’m not going to make a game of chasing around a wounded animal.

As much as I’m not a fan of hunting, I realize it’s a necessity to keep the population in check. I’m not anti gun or anything, but I personally feel you should have to use a bow. The level of rifles now is absolutely insane and it’s not even a challenge anymore. Bows are pretty bad as well now a days, but at least your much more range limted and it takes a lot more skill. But I guess a bullet could be less suffering depending on the shot. I guess I’m not against it, and I understand why, it just isn’t my thing.

I’m pretty simple.

Hunting to eat it? Great. I love me some deer sausage.

Hunting to chopoff its head and mount it on your wall like some ghoulish asshole? Go fuck yourself.

I feel like trophy hunters don’t show any respect to the animal, while hunters for eating do.

I’ve worked in wildlife conservation, and I’m all for it. With a few caveats.

• Be a fucking good shot. Practice. Don’t slop and wound. Humane kills to the greatest extent possible. Know what the fuck you’re doing.
• Eat the meat. Venison is delicious. Harvest, don’t just take a trophy.
• No spears. Holy shit, please. See point 1. Why is this still a thing? Even a niche thing, but still.
• Don’t scoff at tag prices. Be proud of your contribution. Donate to the crunchy granola hippies that ensure you have game to hunt.

people who shoot animals for sport do so because photography is too difficult for them

As a hunter myself, here are a few thoughts that come to mind on the subject:

1. As is almost always the case, “hunters” are not a homogeneous group. There are many reasonable hunters who hunt, among other reasons, because it’s an honest, nature-oriented, and animal-welfare-conscious way to obtain meat for their own consumption. But there are also idiots who are just eager to kill and/or want to bag big trophies (perhaps because they need to compensate for personal shortcomings). In my experience, however, that’s only a tiny minority of the hunters I’ve met so far. Especially because of the pandemic, many people have been thinking about this topic, and I hope that young people will bring a breath of fresh air and sensible ideas to the community in this area as well. In my experience, the stereotype of the psychopathic gun nut is simply not true in the vast majority of cases.

2. We live in a cultural landscape. We must live in a cultural landscape because our survival (yes, even after we’re gone if we’re vegan) depends on our ability to grow enough crops to feed ourselves. In a cultural landscape heavily shaped by human activity, natural regulatory mechanisms (more on this below) do not function, or function only to a very limited extent, because, for example, wild boars find much more food than they would in a natural (forest) ecosystem, which results in correspondingly high reproduction rates (up to 200% for wild boars). So I don’t think we can manage in the long term without some form of regulation. (It should be noted here that I am a big fan of predators like wolves and bears, and that we should reintroduce them wherever possible if we can manage to coexist with them… Wolves and lynx, for example, are much better at regulating roe deer populations (or preventing overgrazing of young trees) than human hunters.) Furthermore, wildlife populations are only partially regulated by predators. For many species, disease and weather conditions play a more decisive role. These are, in and of themselves, natural processes that ensure populations do not get out of control and/or cannot permanently overuse local resources. In both cases, however, “natural regulation” is accompanied by an agonizing death for the individual, and it is this death itself that seems to be the main point of contention for some opponents of hunting, more on this below.

3. Ethical Considerations. Assuming I do my job as a hunter correctly, the animal (let’s say a deer) dies on the spot within seconds without suffering for long. If I don’t shoot the animal (and, as is currently the case in many countries, there are no large predators because they have been exterminated), it dies after about 15 years “of old age,” as the saying goes. What does that mean for the individual in practice? Eventually, its teeth become so worn down that it can no longer feed itself properly; it grows weaker, will likely fall ill at some point because its immune system weakens, and will either be strangled by a red fox, starve to death, freeze to death, or succumb to disease. In any case, the agony is significantly longer than if it were killed by a clean shot. So no matter how you look at it: There is no chance that the roe deer will not die, and (at least from my perspective) death by a well-placed bullet is the quickest, least stressful, and most painless death a roe deer can expect in the wild.

/edit: removed some dashed because I’m not a native english speaker and use an AI translator for more elaborate answers.

Deer are a serious problem for most farmers in my area. Farmers have resorted to mass shootings of them, sometimes 20 or more a night. To remedy this the Game Commission issues multiple additional permits.
I have hunted all my life. As a kid wild game was food for the family. Now, venison is a delicacy for the table. Done right game is fantastic. Done wrong, it will turn your stomach.
I prefer to harvest a calm doe - special permits are only for doe, officially called, “antlerless” deer which are deer with no antlers or very small ones. One clean shot is preferred. This is where whatever weapon you use, practice and more practice counts. You must precisely place your shot. Of course, archery only gives you one shot. Archery deer produce especially good table fare because they bleed out completely and painlessly.
Once downed, the animal is field dressed and skinned as soon as possible. Then the carcass is immediately cooled.
People that harvest an animal that has been run and/or poorly bled out or left to sit around have meat that loses a lot of fine eating quality. Bucks, especially those in rut, have a strong taste - most people around here relegate the meat to sausage containing a mix of pork and seasonings to render it decently edible.
Hunting properly requires a LOT patience but it is a great way to get out and be with yourself to think, enjoy the woods and ruminate because not every trip yields good wild food.

Humans have created the need for “culling to preserve healthy species”. Do they shoot the unhealthy for food? If humans caused the problems in wild species, does “culling the species” really remove the ones causing the problem? Just sayin’.

I wouldn’t be interested in going hunting myself.

I would disapprove of hunting for sport.

If someone does hunt and it’s actually for food or whatever, I don’t like it but it’s not such a priority that I’m going to die on that hill.