Three human predators crouch in a lush forest. The prey is in sight. Silently, the most able of the trio produces his weapon, carefully aims, and soon the three are pursuing the badly wounded animal. Finding the dying victim, they proceed to finish the deed and gut their prize. The triumphant hunters carry momentos of their victory home; a skin, rack of horns, and enough meat to feed their group for a week. Sound primitive to you?

Hunting, though once developed out of necessity, has become a tradition solely for the purposes of sport, entertainment, and ego magnification. Two hundred years ago, hunting was popular in many places because of the rarity of store-fresh meat products. If the provider in a family refused to or was unable to hunt, that family would have gone hungry or lived a life of vegetarianism.

Many "sportsmen" of the pioneer era hunted animals for their skins, horns, and other trophies, sometimes bringing a species to virtual extinction. Is it any wonder we've had to place 410 species of mammals and 78 species of birds on the endangered species list in the last 200 years?

Through advancements of technology, we are now able to store meat for extended periods of time with minimal spoilage. Add to that the increased availability of fresh food markets, and the need for hunting has become almost as extinct as the California condor.

Some may argue that it would be hypocritical to denounce the practice of hunting while allowing the slaughter of cattle and pigs to feed the populous. The difference between cattle and deer, however, is that cattle are bred, raised, and killed domestically by ranchers who rely on cattle as a source of income, not by a gun-toting sportsman. Killing as an occupation somehow seems less boorish than killing for sport.

Sure, hunting does provide the masculine gender with an opportunity for bonding in a "feat pitting man against unfriendly conditions, unpredictability, and lousy weather," but isn't that what we have football for?