Article by Art Activist

There is a fundamental difference between killing for sustenance and hunting for sport. The legal definition of cruelty to animals is: “the unnecessary infliction of physical pain, suffering or death”. Based on that definition, hunting for sport is a cruel and barbaric pastime.

My grandmother had chickens. We ate the eggs and occasionally the chicken. She would ring its neck, and then pluck it before my eyes. It was not hunting and it was not sport. My grandmother took no pleasure in the act of killing the bird but she took great pleasure in feeding her extended family.

Hunters on the other hand derive pleasure from the hunt. They celebrate the killing. Often this is achieved by mounting a piece of the animal that has suffered on a wall or by posting a video or photograph of the hunt online.

Within the sport of hunting, the playing field is in favour of the hunter. Only the hunter knows they are in the game. Hunting often occurs in closed, prescribed zones where animals have little or no chance of escape. Discussions from hunters regarding the ethics of hunting generally pertain to the fairness between hunters themselves and not between the hunter and the animal. For example, it is “unethical” to shoot a duck resting on water and “ethical”