This piece is inspired by the anonymous commenter with the fart obsession.
I eat meat. I realize that is an environmentally indefensible position, and yet, I do it anyway. That probably makes me a hypocrite, but I’m OK with that (in fact, most of us are hypocrites sometimes). What I do have issues with is sport hunting. Now, in most sports, every competitor has a chance of winning… for example, in football, both teams have an even chance of winning that game, at least based on the rules (talent of players and intelligence of coaches is a different matter). In hunting, only the human can win. You see, winning in hunting is killing the other party, very hard for a deer to do when the other party is half a mile away behind a blind with a high powered rifle. To make sport hunting a real sport, you need to give the hunter a knife, and only a knife. At that point he has to jump the deer and manage to kill it with the knife. The deer has a pretty damn good chance of maiming or killing the hunter. Now you have a real sport.
From a bit more serious tone: Hunters talk about the need to thin the deer population, but they harm the overall deer stock in a given area. Sport hunters kill based on criteria that are dangerous, for example, they kill the buck with the best rack of antlers. That buck is the most successful buck in the herd and is the one that should most have its genes passed on. Wolves, on the other hand, have always killed the old, the weak, the sick. Wolves make the deer stronger, humans make them weaker, over successive generations.
This brings me back to the knife idea. If the hunter has to kill the prey with a knife, they will kill the one that has the least chance of killing them, or they will go after the one with the best rack of antlers, and the deer wins… improving our gene pool by editing out stupidity.