But those of us who take our own food from the outdoors experience the reassurance of remaining connected to the cycle of life outdoors. There are, but quite often, it's not for the reasons typically offered by hunters. The old explanation, which is to bring home some meat for the table, would seem to be a self-contradictory rationalization today since hunters do not acquire the majority of their meat from hunting, and few depend upon the meat for their survival. And while some hunters suggest it's a desire to be a part of nature which drives them to kill animals, those hunters could just as easily spend time outdoors without killing anything, and so that rationalization also falls short. To begin, it's necessary to get openly to the root of why there should be any question at all.
Animals die as a consequence of a successful hunt.
And there's something about the bloodshed intrinsic with this visceral pursuit which sometimes raises questions about a hunter's motives. Non-hunters occasionally offer the perception that hunters are indifferent to the killing. Or that the purpose of hunting simply is to kill. But it's not the case. Despite the suspicions some non-hunters might have toward hunters, the awareness of having taken a life which was not essential for our survival is profound among most modern hunters.