Blood in the Woods: A Vegan’s Response to Hunting Ethics
OP/ED
You’ve heard it before. "I only eat meat I’ve hunted myself." Or, "I could never support factory farming, but I think ethical hunting is different." Some even say, "At least the deer had a free life before it died."
‘‘No matter how respectful the ritual, ethical hunting is still unnecessary killing. The future isn’t found in the trigger pull, but in the refusal to pull it. True respect for animals means letting them live—not choosing which ones get to die.’’
These justifications are common among people trying to position themselves as conscious consumers. They believe that by hunting their own meat, they’re avoiding the cruelty of industrial animal agriculture. In doing so, they argue they’re being more ethical than the billions who passively support factory farming every time they swipe a package of shrink-wrapped meat off the grocery shelf.
And to be clear, they are right about one thing: factory farming is a horror show.
But here’s the question few are willing to ask—much less answer honestly:
Is it ever ethical to kill an animal who didn’t want to die?
This essay explores that uncomfortable territory.
Factory Farming: An Ethical Disaster
Let’s not mince words. Factory farming is a system built on exploitation, confinement, mutilation, and premature death. It is efficient, brutal, and invisible by design. Every year, billions of animals are bred into existence only to suffer and die for human taste preferences. Chickens have their beaks seared off. Pigs go insane in gestation crates. Calves are torn from their mothers so humans can drink their milk. The list is endless. And grotesque.
So yes, anyone who recognizes the moral catastrophe of factory farming and walks away from it is at least taking one step in the right direction.
But what if they take one step right into the woods with a gun or a bow?
The Case for Ethical Hunting
Hunters will often tell you they have more respect for animals than the average meat-eater. They understand the life and death cycle. They value the wilderness. They’ll say they make sure the animal doesn’t suffer and that they use the whole animal, not just parts. Many argue that wild animals live natural, free lives and die quickly—compared to the systemic torment of farmed animals.
This argument is persuasive to many. It’s seen as noble, even primal. But is it actually moral?
Respect Isn’t Enough
There’s something inherently contradictory in claiming to respect someone while pointing a weapon at them. If a hunter truly respects an animal’s autonomy, how can they justify ending its life when it wants to go on living?
Imagine someone saying they respected their dog, then shot them for dinner. The outrage would be instant.
The truth is, respect isn’t the measure of morality. Consent is.
And animals don’t consent to die. Not on farms. Not in slaughterhouses. Not in the woods.
Killing by Choice vs Killing by System
Factory farming is a system. Hunting is a personal choice. Some argue this makes hunting more moral—because the hunter at least accepts the weight of the death, unlike the distant consumer.
But I’d argue the opposite.
When you choose to kill a sentient being, without necessity, you’re taking on moral responsibility directly. You are the slaughterhouse.
And if it’s not for survival—if it’s for pleasure, pride, or taste—how can that ever be considered more ethical than someone who eats factory-farmed meat out of ignorance or economic pressure?
What About Conservation?
Some hunters cloak their actions in the language of conservation. They claim hunting controls populations, funds wildlife agencies, and protects biodiversity.
It’s true that hunting licenses and tags contribute revenue. But this doesn’t justify killing. We could fund conservation through non-lethal means. The fact that we don’t is a failure of political will, not moral necessity.
And let’s not forget: wild animals managed for hunting are often bred, baited, or manipulated to ensure they’re plentiful—because hunting requires a steady supply of targets.
That’s not conservation. That’s wildlife farming.
The Survival Myth
One of the most persistent myths around hunting is the idea that it is "natural" or "survival-based." But in 2025, almost no one in the developed world needs to hunt to survive.
Grocery stores exist. Plant-based proteins exist. Beans, lentils, grains, and vegetables exist. A hunter in Maine who shoots a deer, then goes home to a kitchen stocked with almond milk and organic quinoa, is not surviving. He’s choosing violence when there are peaceful alternatives.
Survival cannot be claimed when there are choices.
Killing for Sport or for Ethics?
Some hunters admit they enjoy the kill. The adrenaline. The primal connection. The ritual. And that honesty is oddly refreshing.
But when people say they hunt because it's more ethical than buying meat from a store, that’s where the danger lies. Because it cloaks violence in virtue. It frames killing as kindness.
We’ve done this before. Colonial empires did it. Slave owners did it. Abusers do it.
Let’s not add animal death to the list of things we pretend are noble.
Are Wild Lives Worth Less Than Farmed Ones?
The deer in the woods. The boar in the swamp. The rabbit in the meadow. These animals are not resources. They are not “clean meat.” They are individuals with relationships, routines, and instincts. They avoid pain. They protect their young. They want to live.
Just because they’re wild does not mean their lives are disposable.
In fact, the very wildness people claim to honor should make us pause before disrupting it with bullets and blood.
Veganism as True Respect
There is a better way. Veganism doesn’t require domination or death. It doesn’t require moral gymnastics or violent rituals. It simply asks us to live and let live.
No sentient being should have to die because someone else wants to feel closer to nature, feel proud of their kill, or feel less guilty than their factory-farming neighbor.
True connection to the natural world comes from reverence, not conquest.
And nothing is more reverent than choosing to do no harm.
A Thought Experiment
Imagine this:
You’re walking through the woods. You see a young deer. You could pull the trigger. Or you could lower your weapon and let her go.
One path ends in death. One doesn’t.
Which one feels more moral?
You already know the answer.
What Hunters Can Learn From Vegans
Hunters often pride themselves on taking responsibility for their food. But vegans go further. We don’t just reject factory farming—we reject all unnecessary killing. We take full responsibility for the impact of our choices, and we remove ourselves from the chain of death.
You can romanticize the hunt. Or you can recognize that, in a world where kale, tofu, and lentil stew exist, there’s no need to put a bullet in a wild animal’s brain to feed yourself.
Responsibility isn’t about killing with your own hands. It’s about choosing not to kill when you don’t have to.
Final Thoughts
Ethical hunting is a seductive narrative. It soothes the conscience. It wraps violence in tradition. It offers a clean-looking alternative to a filthy system.
But at its core, it’s still unnecessary killing. And no matter how respectfully you frame it, no matter how quick the shot or how thankful the prayer, the animal is still dead—because someone decided they should be.
Factory farming is a moral failure. But hunting for pleasure or pride isn’t the solution. It’s just a different costume on the same cruel act.
The future is not found in the trigger pull. It’s found in the refusal to pull it.
Further Reading:
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows by Melanie Joy
The World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Defiant Daughters edited by Lisa Kemmerer
Thank you for reading The Vegan Dispatch. This piece is for subscribers only because these conversations matter. You are part of the movement helping reshape the world.
Stay loud, stay kind, and never stop questioning the stories we’ve been told about who lives and who dies.
—Mike