guess I just don't feel like you can take a topic as basic as "hunting" and divide it up into different categories. Whatever the reason, the end result is the same: a dead animal.
Oh we divide it up all the time. You have sport hunting, which is what most of us do. You have subsistence hunting, which is what you do to survive. You have commercial hunting or market hunting, which has largely been abolished. You have to talk about hunting in different categories, because everything about them are different.
For instance: I myself am happy with the tagging system we're currently under here in KY. I get 2 tags for my $60 and then it's $15/tag after that. That's fine for me. However, if I was a commercial hunter, hunting for restaurants, I could not turn a profit having to pay that kind of tag price. Ditto for the poor schlump that is trying to feed his family. In the latter case, Ky does not require a landowner to purchase license or tags to hunt his own property. He needs to obey all the other laws, but if you own a plot and hunt it, you get to harvest what you can for free.
A dead animal is a dead animal? No. It all depends. For me? a dead deer is more of a symbolic thing. I kill to have hunted, etc. If I have to eat tag soup, that's fine. I can afford to hit the supermarket on the way home.
That is not to say the whole right vs. privilege thing is a dead issue. My feeling is that the states, having assumed the mantle of responsibility for managing the game, also have a strong responsibility to maintain access to the game. We've agreed that hunting is a right. Therefore it is wrong for the state to, for instance, abolish hunting or make hunting rules unnecessarily restrictive. They need to be mindful that they are the stewards of a basic natural right. Everyone should have a chance to hunt.