The Hungry Defense

“Hunting for food” is often given as a justification for killing animals. I’m only half-satisfied with that argument. A person could use the same rationalization for killing a dog, a lion or even a human. “Well, your honor, I ate him afterwards.”

Few people need venison or squirrel meat to live. There’s almost always a supermarket or restaurant around. The meat in a supermarket comes from animals raised specifically for the purpose of feeding people. As tragic as that is, it’s not as tragic as slaughtering yet more animals for the purpose of feeding people. I don’t think hunting reduces by much the number of cows, pigs and chickens we need to raise and slaughter.

From what I see, the eating of wild animals is more of a luxury than a need. A special treat. I think it’s a tiny percentage of hunters who, if they didn’t get their deer this year, would lose weight.

I know that in a rural state I’ll get almost nothing but disagreement on this. But “that’s how we’ve always done it” is never a good argument. The question I’m raising is: can we do better? Can we easily find a way to imbue our culture with a greater love of creatures? If all wildlife were to become inedible for some reason, would anyone go hungry? If we found a way to manage animal population without hunting, would anyone’s quality of life decline enough to talk about? I see hunting as a cultural leftover. We don’t need it. We just enjoy it. But if we didn’t have that joy, couldn’t we easily find some other? What about stalking animals in camouflage and rifle-shaped video cameras. Wouldn’t that give us the pleasures of hunting, but without the taking of life, the terror and grief of the surviving animals, the decreased sensitivity in ourselves to lives other than our own?