How Do You Defend The Decision to Kill the Meat You Eat?

I'm always curious how other hunting omnivores defend their decision to not just eat meat, but also take part in the killing of that meat. There are many arguments to make--some valid and others just reactionary--but the one I gravitate toward is that humans are animals and hunting is simply the moral choice to participate within the natural ecosystem. To me, that is the simplest and most clear-cut answer. The counter point to that is modern man now exists outside that ecosystem, though I think most rational humans who have any understanding of agricultural systems would reject that argument. A soybean field may be less visually jarring than a clear-cut forest, but in reality there isn't a lot of difference--the resulting monoculture is just a clear-cut prairie.

In the video clip above, author Steven Rinella (who I interviewed a while back) does a pretty job of defending his position to hunt and eat meat. I particularly like his point about veganism being a clearer ethos than anti-hunters who still eat meat.

I am interested in how Wild Chef readers would respond to the same question from a vegan. Rinella answers rationally and without attacking the questioner or his way of life. Would you do the same?