Common excuses for hunters and meat lovers supporting their acts

Many excuses exist for those defending a lifestyle both archaic and obsolete, whether it is generally meat eating or otherwise. hunters, i claim are more dangerous than a general blind meat eater in that they can harm animals and witness what would make many go vegan at the sight of it. but regardless, i find many who, even on our side, support their arguments. some claim again that humans who are 'wild' have a right to kill animals for food, completely ignoring that we are not omnivores and share much of our anatomy with herbivores.

1. Hunting is more ethical/sustainable/healthy than beef/factory farms/slaughter
This argument is used mainly by both Animal Activists (mainly welfare who pose as 'rights') and hunters alike. they usually seem to agree that hunting is not full of the hormones, the level of industrialization that is factory farming. and in that essence, they are correct. however, what they are incorrect in is that hunting involves far more suffering (bowhunting has a wounding rate of over 65%, while animals on factory farms are lucky to live for 15 minutes after being slit in the throat; a deer embedded with arrrows can suffer for weeks and starve) and hunting requires a mentality of the consumer that is relative to a serial killer. one who buys meat from the store (and of course from factory farms mainly) would not be shown the amount of harsh cruelty done to the animals. hunters, in contrast, can kill animals directly and see everything. hunting then, is like a wall-less slaughterhouse. what would make any average meat eater consider going vegan over would not likely phase a hunter, who can see all the gore and still eat his/her kill.

2. Hunting helps control populations where predators are no longer in sufficient numbers or are extinct.
I know the argument of who killed all the predators off seems to mean nothing to those on both sides now the fact is that it is exactly why there are 'too many deer' as hunters claim. and no, hunting does not help control populations at all. in fact it does more harm, in that humans lack the instincts of a true predator who only hunts animals by hand and is only able to 'cull' the weak and sick animals (healthy ones are too fast/experienced), thus ensuring a naturally strong gene pool. since humans need weapons and other tools to even remotely hunt animals. their being sick or strong has no merit, and the most favored animals are the strong ones. hunters claim that sick animals can make humans sick or cause food poisoning. this is true. however, NO true predator gets sick even if consuming a deer with CWD. like Bovine BSE, CWD IS possible in humans, but it takes a decade to show symptoms. and sadly, by then, it is too late. no cure exists for either disease once symptoms show up.

3. Humans hunting deer is more 'humane' than a wolf doing the same
Leaving the lack of logic in this argument aside, i will argue it. what IS 'humane' to anyone? is it naturally eating meat due to a physiological need and having an anatomy that ensures a quick kill and fast consumption or is it the feelings of which is savage and which is civil? do we claim that wolves, animals with a need for meat, who are able to rip animals to shreds is more cruel than a human who claims to end lives with one shot more humane? or is the definition of humane to mean that those who do not need to kill should not? humans, do not need meat. there is plenty of evidence and many who live as vegetarian or vegan who can prove that point, so is the killing of meat really about how it is killed or that it has to be killed at all? if we do not need meat, then the  deaths for it is certainly unnecessary, wasteful, and in that respect, cruel and inhumane.

4. Humans have the right to choose/it is my choice of a diet/don't force your opinion on me
One of two last resort tactics used by humans who hunt and eat meat both. that we have the right to choose and that meat is legal and available makes it wrong to 'force a change on them'. but do murderers have a right to choose? are we forcing our opinions on those who buy guns legally and then shoot humans? pets? no! do we have a right to choose to rape a woman or child even if sexual enhancement drugs are legal to buy? no! are we forcing our opinion on those who destroy buildings and human lives in terrorism by imprisonment? NO! there is no 'right to choose' if it involves a wasteful destruction of an innocent life for something one does not need. while i will not argue against lethal force used in self-defense, the point is hunting is NOT legally self defense nor necessary. it is simply wasteful.

5. God gave us animals to eat/use/for us to benefit from
I really despise arguing religion as it is so illogical. the Bible of many religions contradicts one another. the Koran says it is ok to kill 'infidels'. our Bible claims that homosexuals should be 'put to death' (read the Leviticus chapters). but it also makes many errors. for a supposedly superior being who 'knows all' would it seem rather dumb of Him to claim that Earth itself is a 'disk' or that rabbits 'chew the cud' or that bats 'are birds?' i find that a bit funny really...

...but getting to the argument itself. it always cites 'animals' are here for us to [yada yada yada]. if so, then why are dogs, cats, pets, exempt and even protected by law? aren't they animals too? i do not recall the phrase which is cited (which does not exist in any Bible of any kind from any religion by the way) being in favor of 'wild' animals or 'farm' animals. so in essense, since humans, pets and  wildlife are ALL ANIMALS by that standard they use they should not have any compunctions against killing anyone for food or trophy, including us.

                                          "Hunting a species to extinction, is not logical"

                                         --Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home