I didn't say that. I said that nobody in the U.S. had a need to hunt for food. Since you can get everything you need at the local market a lot faster, and without any special clothing, I assume there must be some motivation other than need for hunters.
I don't think anything I wrote implies any such value judgement. Somebody said hunting was not about entertainment, and I am essentially challenging that statement.
As a general rule we're better off being able to go to the market and get what we need in twenty minutes. That's an advantage of our advanced civilization. Along with washing machines it is one of the things which gives us back leisure time that our ancestors didn't have access to. Hunting for food takes time, skill, preparation. There is an uncertain chance of success. The motivation is unlikely to be simply acquiring things to eat.
Motivation? How about hormone/antibiotic free food? Lean meat - often considered far healthier than beef. Lower fat, lower cholesterol, higher in iron, etc. Or turkey that has a hell of a lot of flavor, compared to store bought counterparts. And Mmmm, rabbit is delicious. And, at least a few times a year, squirrel dinners - melt in your mouth & full of delicious flavor. Not to mention, getting the squirrels is (usually) a matter of changing my clothes after work & going for a walk. And grouse is delicious, as well as pheasant.
I think "entertainment" is the wrong word. Enjoyment is a better word. Many enjoy being outside in the woods where it's very peaceful (usually). Though, there are aspects of entertainment - I cannot think of *anything* I'd consider entertaining that was directly related to the hunt- but relaxing on a log from a downed tree, sitting very quietly, and having a chipmunk not even notice you & try to steal your sandwich - or a red squirrel that after you scare the bejesus out of it, it spends the next 20 minutes 10 feet away in a tree, scolding you. Or watching the antics of some of the other animals who aren't aware of your presence.
I disagree with your general rule. *I* think that as a general rule, the majority of the population is too sedentary. That is, too many people stop at the store or some place for take-out food, go home, and sit on the couch until bedtime. Whereas a lot of the guys I know who hunt will put hours into planting crops for deer, hours upon hours hiking in the woods & scouting for good hunting areas/deer trails, and then time hunting - they're using their leisure time for something much more productive than the majority of Americans - it IS one of their leisure activities.
Further, you have to pay for your food. At the average rate of pay for American workers, the value of the food that many hunters get exceeds what their pay would be for the number of hours they put in to it (were they to get paid.) For example, I expect that on opening day, I'll get a deer. That's roughly 80 pounds of venison for me and my family. I process it myself, so figure about 3 hours to cut it up, wrap the steaks, grind the burger, etc. Most people have to work a lot more than 1 day in order to afford 80 pounds of beef.
There is a strong movement to make the lives and deaths of livestock more humane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
Yes, there is. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, people have their hearts in the right place, but really don't know what they're talking about. For example, I just googled for pigs piglets. Among the first links, the male piglets have their testicles cut out of their scrotums! Oh my God, the horror! How inhumane! (I'm being sarcastic.) Actually, there's an interview with Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) about castrating lambs. It's great to see someone who admits he thought one thing, but then was able to see first hand how what he perceived as being a more humane practice actually was less humane, and vice versa. Unfortunately, politicians sometimes bow to political pressure from misguided individuals, resulting in farmers in some instances being forced to use less humane processes, rather than more humane processes.