For many people, the answer to this question is black and white. Yes it is. No, it isn't.

The following excerpts are from an article by Ann S. Causey, who teaches philosophy at Auburn University.

Can Data Answer Moral Questions?
"The most striking feature of the current debate is the debaters' vastly different understanding of the question, Is hunting a morally acceptable activity? Those who support hunting usually respond to this question by citing data. They enumerate the number of acres protected by hunting-generated funds; how many game populations increased due to management; how much the economy is stimulated by hunting...

"The above statements may be perfectly true. They are also almost totally irrelevant to the question at hand; for the anti-hunters are not asking whether hunting is an effective management tool, whether it is economically advisable, or whether hunters love and appreciate nature. Instead, they are asking, "Is it ethical to kill animals for sport? Are any forms of hunting morally right?" The hunter says yes; the antihunter says no, and yet they are answering entirely different questions... It is as if one asked what day it is and the other responded by giving the time."

The Thoughtful Hunter's Quarry
"It has been said that hunting is the most uncivilized and primitive activity in which a modern person can legally engage. Therein lies ammunition for the biggest guns in the antihunters' arsenal; therein also lies its appeal to the hunter and the source of approval by many sympathetic non-hunters. Hunting is one of the few activities that allows an individual to participate directly in the life and death cycles on which all natural systems depend..."

"An ethical relationship with wildlife relies on an appreciation of ecosystems, of natural processes. Such an appreciation is gained through familiarity, over time, with effort, curiosity, humility, and respect. These are the lessons that hunting teaches its better students."

"Consider the following questions. To what extent is shooting an animal over bait, or out of a tree at close range after it was chased up there by a dog, a morally enriching act? Can shooting a captive animal enhance one's understanding of natural processes? Does a safari to shoot animals located for you by a guide honor your cultural heritage? Does killing an animal in order to obtain a trophy demonstrate reverence? Which forms of hunting are nontrivial, meaningful, ecologically sound, and morally enriching?"

These are only some of the questions around which the battle over hunting is taking shape. These questions and others have aroused fears, indignation, defensiveness, and denial. However, no proponent of ethical hunting has anything to fear from the questions. These are questions we hunters should have been asking ourselves, and answering, all along..."

A Reverence For Life?
"Can anyone give us a final answer to the question, "Is hunting ethical?" No. For one thing, the question, and thus its answer, depend heavily on how one defines "hunting."

"The concept of ethical hunting is as hard to pin down as the definition of the virtuous person. Hunting proponents do not seek to impose a particular lifestyle, morality, or spirituality on all citizens; they do wish to preserve a variety of choices concerning responsible human recreation and engagement with nature. It is highly doubtful that any one system -- whether it be "boutique" hunting, vegetarianism, or modern factory farming -- is an adequate way to meet the ethical challenges of food procurement and human/nonhuman relationships in our diverse culture and burgeoning population."

------------------
A different version of these comments appeared in Bugle, the publication of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The above comments were excerpted from Orion Magazine, Winter 1996. The full essay appears in A Hunter's Heart: Honest Essays About Bloodsport, edited by David Petersen, published by Henry Holt.