Quoted By:
The arguments when it comes to hunting never lead anywhere, because people who think they're hunting for sport are actually mostly hunting for food, and vice versa. And even then, there are actually four sides to this debate.
There are those that lay traps and hunt with powerful, accurate rifles to make sure they won't miss their target. Others think that animals don't get a chance, and that thus dosen't make it "hunting", but "sport".
Well this happens to be the most effective way to get food. So these people are actually hunting for food. These are the people you never get to hear about, because they just do their shit and that's it. They grab their rifle, kill no more than what they can eat, and they're done. This is "regular hunting".
There are those that want to hunt in a traditional way, whether this is by using bows or spears, or simple hunting rifles with bird shot, and sacrifice efficiency for a more fair hunting, so that game has a chance to escape. This is seen as "hunting for food" for those that pratice it. But while everyone respects their will to do it that way, this is the most inefficient way of getting food, and usually leads to animals suffering. This actually has some "sport" aspects to it; who would worry about playing fair if it wasn't a sport?
So it's actually halfway between hunting for food and hunting for sport. These are the people willing to walk for hours, or wait on a tree stand for as much time, only to miss their only opportunity; but they won't kill more than they can eat. Let's just call it "traditional hunting".