Hmm.. to this guy I would just like to address some of the points you've made, I respect that you hunt for food but still find it difficult to understand how it can be done as a 'sport'. So don't mind if I tear apart your argument. ;)
In my opinion, killing should only be done when it is a necessity (food for example), I completely fail to see how hunting for 'enjoyment' comes under this idea.
-If humans didn't kill the animals they would be over populated and die of starvation, which is more painful than being shot.
As a biologist, I can say that this is incorrect. In a community of animals, without humans 'picking them off' there would be no difference.
When hunters do kill large numbers of wild animals, it just lets the remaining to breed further and with the resources available causing the population to increase back to the same number. Also this affects other animals in the community, including predators, prey, detritivores and plants, putting these numbers out of place, causing futher mishaps inside the community until it eventually stabilises.
Also, it would be fair to assume that the environment of the game is one (e.g a forest) that has plentiful resources to support the organisms, making 'death by starvation' inside an environment quite difficult. Not all hunted animals breed at alarming rates and not all animals end up starving to death.
-Hunting is not a cruel sport, nor is it unfair. It is very difficult to find a deer in the wild that is legal to be shot. It takes a great deal of skill and patience.
-Most of the time you don't even see any deer or whatever animal you are hunting while you are on the hunt, so most of the joy comes from being out in nature.
This just made me laugh.
Firstly, not a cruel sport? Well I would mind being shot dead that's for sure, and I'm sure other animals would too. Animal instinct is to survive, sorry, but killing one for fun IS cruel.
Humans are animals too, if someone tried to kill you for a buzz- you would find that ok?
Also not being 'unfair' is ridiculous. Well, yes it is unfair. So what if it's difficult to find something to blast at? That doesn't make it even for the animal. It's impossible for the animal to win 'the game'.
All the animal can do is try to survive by running and hiding, wheras hunters have a simple task off pulling a trigger at it. How you can think that a hunter is on even grounds with wild animals bemuses me.
Also if most of the 'joy comes from being out in nature' why not just go out walking, without the intention of destroying a part of it?
Environments are maintained by steady populations and relationships of the organisms in it. When you kill a number of wild creatures, it disrupts these relationships, rarely doing any benefit to the community.
-Animals don't suffer much from being shot with a hunting rifle's round. They are big enough to put the animal down without much pain at all. A skilled hunter is able to hit the heart, which causes a death in less than 30 seconds. Much less painful than the week or so it takes a deer to starve to death.
Again, not all animals starve to death, matter of fact very few do. Especially ones that live in suitable habitats (i.e. deers in a forest), it's called adaptation.
It appears that you are trying to say that it's is better for the animal to be shot dead rather than die naturally? What about animals that are healthy? In terms of suffering, what about the knock on effect to predators or family that rely on it? What about unskilled hunters, should they not be allowed to kill because the animal would suffer even more?
Eitherway, even if it didn't suffer, a life has been lost, and for what? entertainment? That hardly seems necessary or justifiable.
