In a modern society where supermarket food is available pretty much everywhere is hunting ethical or unnecessary and unethical **?

wildlife management is VERY critical to sustain a healthy population in a given area' The challenge is keeping the right number of each kind of animal at the right population in the right area. Too many or not enough can damage the ecosystem, or even destroy it. This is where wildlife biologists and hunters come in to insure a healthy population of wildlife thrive in their environment. This also helps all the living things there from plants, trees, mushrooms and even insects and the soil to remain healthy. Wildlife management is just that. The people spend years studding and working in different ecosystems, the impact of the critters that life there and much much more!!!!! No matter its an urban area, farm land, wilderness, parks, big cities  ANY place on earth they have to study it with highly skilled wildlife experts.

If this was not done population could earther explode or die off nearing extinction. Take deer for an example if there are so many in certain areas, the number of deer car crashes has caused millions in auto damage, also people have died from that. also with that many deer farmers crops will be destroyed home owners property can be damaged. So the wildlife agencies want hunters to hunt to keep a healthy population and that in turn reduces crop damage car accidents saves human lives and lowers the spread of diseases. If civilian hunters cant do it in some areas they have government hunters do it, This is the only way to control wildlife populations we humans have built infrastructure near that interferes with nature,

In the remote wilderness nature functions just fine in a burial system of the food chain. And man has found way to help that system work better as well.

Take some wildlife management classes and you will understand much more how this works..

Hunting is certainly unnecessary. I don't hunt, and I am perfectly well-fed. Whether it is ethical or not, would depend of course on your ethics, right? There are those who think that eating any kind of animal is unethical. 

My opinion, is that if you think eating animal products from the supermarket, you have no reason to oppose hunting. Both involve killing animals, it's just that one is farm-raised, and one is wild. 

As I said, I'm not a hunter myself, but I support people who do hunt, and I think it's perfectly ethical if done properly. 

If you already have the equipment it doesn’t cost that much. A resident elk cow tag for around $60 bucks plus other stamps, cost of a couple refills of gas, cost of a single rifle round (hopefully), cost of ice, cost for a week of camp food. With luck you will score a 550lb cow (average) that will result in about 165 lbs of meat. How much $$$ dies that cost to cost of beef? It sure does save a family a LOT of money putting an elk in the freezer. And it’s WAY WAY healthier red meat than anything you can buy in the grocery store. Virtually no fat and maybe more protein than beef, at only a fraction of the calories. I would argue it’s a “super food”. I would argue if you wanted to eat healthy, go hunting. If you like eating junk food, keep going to the grocery store. 

Now what, John?

We go hunting?

That one on your far left should go on the wall, Homer

Matt pretty much "nailed it"...

Why is killing a cow for food any more ethical than killing a deer? When it comes to the food chain nature plays no favorites.

Obviously you think meat comes from the back of the supermarket and have no idea what a poor little calf goes through to make a Happy Meal for your kids.

Hunting and fishing activities serve many purposes, not only the actual activities but the economy centered around it. Not only are they a powerful tool to regulate and maintain animal populations to limit human and animals encounters (vehicle collisions, or ones cat becoming a snack to name a few examples) but they also aid biologists in keeping tabs on population heath, of many species. 

The Pittman and Robertson act designates that any hunting/fishing equipment, firearms and ammunition is to receive and extra tax upon purchase that goes directly towards conservation efforts and land acquisition for nature preserves. 

Trophy hunting in Africa is the sole source of income for some areas. Several thousands of dollars are paid to local governments and tribes to allow hunters to hunt a designated animal which in most cases is near deaths door and is a hazard to the younger members of its species. When the animal is harvested the meat is distributed to hungry community members through out the area. Where trophy hunting is banned in Africa you see the previously employed guides become poachers as a source of income.

Edit: However, it is not feasible for EVERYONE to be a hunter. Animal rights groups also play a part in the preservation of our natural resources through charitable donations. Hunters via their licensing and equipment purchases usually outweigh the donations by a slight margin but if this source of income was stricken away, The conservation effort would be severely crippled.

So to answer your question, hunting is ethical and necessary. 

I hate being objective because I'm against feeding animals by people but the wild boars that got out of control and we're basically starving and causing other animals to starve because they were eating too much of the food being shot was sort of necessary the guy from Green peace did it.