[Argus]

I've read all three of the hunting threads and I cannot believe that the point I'm about to make hasn't been mentioned yet. I hope I just missed it, because it's fundamental to countering the kneejerk argument many posters seem to have against hunting. The point I'm about to make applies only to managed legal hunting - I am definitely against poaching and the hunting of endangered/low population species.

Animals' populations cycle. They are highest in the summer, and they decrease in the winter, because their habitat can sustain fewer animals during the winter. Under a managed hunting program no more animals are killed than would die during the low population season anyway. These animals aren't wasted, and even if they are killed for sport they were destined for death anyway. There simply wouldn't be enough resources (usually food) to sustain them.

Hunters are often among the most ardent environmentalists, because when habitat is encroached by humans they lose their opportunity to hunt and enjoy the outdoors. Hunting is about far more than killing an animal for pleasure - it's about enjoying nature, developing a greater understanding of our place in the food chaing, and having fun. There are many positive reasons to hunt - at the risk of sounding trite, perhaps as many reasons as there are hunters.

That man isn't wasing a moose - he's using it. He's eating the meat, likely taking the head as a trophy, and also probably using the hide for leather. To suggest that this man has done something wrong or has sinned against nature is ignorant. Try thinking instead of saying, "Animals are cute and nature is important. Killing is bad. Don't kill the pretty animals."