I'm bewildered as to why hunting food for sport is a moral dilemma for some.
You've been in 'discussion' with certain people on this forum for too long, my friend. You've picked up the habit of writing along the lines of '
I can't understand why.... followed by a controversial statement' thing.
For myself, I see food and sport as separate entities.
If someone is hunting and killing something because it's the only way they can eat, fine. It's them or the animal. There is no question of whether it's sporting or not, we're talking about survival, so anything goes.
If someone is killing it because they're minding their own business and the animals about to attack them, okay. Once again, we're talking survival.
If someone is killing something that's done them no harm and presented no threat to them purely because they want to show off by, let's say - using a totally random example - posing for a picture with it after it's dead and sending it to their friends, then I think they need help.
For all the talk about 'sport', what it boils down to is that some people get a kick out of killing something without putting themselves at risk. If they wanted the risk, they could hunt the animal bare-handed. If they just wanted to shoot, there are targets. If they just wanted to track, they could do so without a gun. If they desperately need to feel a gun in their hand and to use live targets, they could fire tranqs and release the animal later on. They need to kill something that can't fight back. As far as 'sport' goes, it's the equivalent of practising your fighting skills by hitting kids.
