So, what approach/explanation would you use/have to address the concerns of those raised to think "Don't kill it...if you're not going to eat it"?
Good question Flint, and I would choose to use the logic of ecological stewardship.
I was raised to think, and still do, that you eat what you kill. I completely abide by this as we here in North America for the most part don't need to hunt to feed ourselves day to day and, as Carlos Mencia has pointed out, generally speaking we go hunting on a full stomach for fun. Other parts of the world don't have it so well. So, from the aspect of hunting as a means of sport, I completely agree with the idea that you need to eat what you kill. I'm still working on the deer I shot last fall, got something like 80lbs of meat out of him.
Now, in regards to being a good steward of the environment I live in, research and knowledge of the natural flora & fauna are required. I'm more familiar with how Missouri worked on this issue, so I'll use that as my source. Missouri DNR views
hunting as a means of population control in lieu of natural predators for game species. That means that in the course of a year, a certain percentage of animals are expected to be predated on and removed. Since there are far fewer natural predators (wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, bears) for game such as deer and less competition among other species for food (elk, buffalo, bears), human hunters are needed to step in and fill the predation gap. Now, in order for hunting to be successful at managing a population, it needs 3 key elements:
1) Tags must be cheap enough that anyone who wants to hunt can and can do it as much as they want while still limiting the number of animals taken to appropriate levels
2) Adequate land is avaliable for the number of hunters to hunt with reasonable success for an apex predator
3) There must be a means of handling excess harvest that hunters themselves can't consume
Missouri has accomplished this quite well and each year, nearly 250000 lbs of deer meat goes to food banks in Missouri as a result of hunters having more deer than they can eat and Missouri still has a healthy deer population. Now, they have feral hog as well and Missouri still adheres to the 3 elements above, but makes one clear distinction: Feral hogs a not a native species to Missouri. They are an invasive species that is a result of transplanting the Eurasian Boar to the Americas for European hunters to hunt and cross-breeding with escaped domesticated hogs. They are extremely destructive to habitat, carry disease, and predate on other animals as they can. Missouri has implemented a policy of complete eradication of the hogs by allowing hunters to use whatever equipment they choose to during anytime of day anywhere they are legally able to hunt.
Now, how do I make the distinction of waste? Most species in North America were here by natural selection and the result of forces beyond any persons control. They are to preserved and kept healthy for future generations to enjoy. For the animals that were brought here by an act of man, they are to be removed by any method that is deemed fit to remove them. In the case of hogs, they consume the environment they invade. I find it fitting and perfectly ok that they be consumed by the environment they invaded. After all, if a deer drops dead of old age something out there eats the carcass.
