I have read the preceeding posts. It is difficult to articulate what hunting means to hunters, and I think this explains the dissatisfaction expressed for the article. How can one brief article articulate what hunting means to us? It must inevitably fail.
Sure, the kill is an integral part of hunting. If killing wasn't part of it, we wouldn't need to carry guns. It is not ALL of the hunt. Different people hunt for different reasons. I am relatively new to big game hunting. I took my first deer, a doe, in 2002. I took my second deer, a small 3x3 buck, in 2003. I took my first pronghorn antelope, a doe, about 12 days ago (my 14 year old son took his first big game animal, a buck pronghorn, the day earlier). I hope to take more deer the week of Thanksgiving. I like to cook, and venison is an excellent meat around which to build an excellent meal. I like to give venison packages away to friends. For me hunting success is closely tied to killing game. This is not saying that I hunt only to kill or that the killing is the whole of the experience for me. I like sitting in the blackness before the dawn comes, seeing the stars, seeing Orion, the hunter, I like hearing owls solemnly hoot to one another. I like the smell of fall leaves in the air. I like the anticipation of unexpected action. I like the feel of a dependable, handsome rifle in my hands. I like walking over the hills and through the woods to my ambush spot (I most often hunt on the ground, hidden under a tree or behind a bush). I think as I become more experienced, I could come to hunt and feel successful even without taking game. So perhaps the centrallity of the kill is a matter of hunting maturity, or the phase of hunting that one is in?