Improving hunting

[madd0ct0r]

Inspired by a recent xkcd, I was left daydreaming about laser turrets mounted on deer, trading potshots with crouching hunters.

But then it hit me. There are already beasts of the hjnt capable of fighting back - wild boar.

So, if I am elected this autumn, I pledge the following:

1) Gunpowder hunting will be restricted to wild pig

2) Skillful hunting of deer through use of bows will remain permissable. Trapping only on licence.

3) to control deer populations, wolves are to be reintroduced everywhere deer are present. It is felt that in addition to clear ecosystem benefits, this will promote teamwork and comradeship amongst hunters.

4) to ensure an equitable access of opportunity, wild boar, deer and wolves are to regularly released in city centers. Finders keepers.

[Formless]

...why? Just why is this posted here and not in testing?

None of this nonsense is relevant to hunting. I'll not touch the obvious attempts at humor-- though none of it is funny, and that's why I don't read xkcd-- and instead go after the underlying logic of this... proposal.

There is nothing unsportsmanlike about rifle hunting. In fact while I know bow hunting takes considerable skill, its arguably less humane. A bow causes the animal to die slowly of blood loss. In fact tracking the animal after hitting it-- often by tracking the blood trail-- is an integral part of the skillset of a bowhunter. With a rifle on the other hand, you are actually legally obligated to use expanding bullets-- the same type of ammo banned from war-- because they cause such massive injury to the animal that it usually dies very quickly. You might have to do some tracking, but the animal can usually be found within a few meters of where it was struck rather than the dozens of meters that an animal hit with an arrow can go before dying-- if it dies at all. A deer with an arrow in it might continue to suffer with its injury and never be found because it might survive a week before dying. This is also why there are minimum caliber requirements on hunting big game with rifles as well. It doesn't hurt that the faster the animal dies, the better the meat tastes-- adrenaline actually affects flavor. Negatively. And as long as you are going to hunt deer, you might as well eat it. Same goes for any other animal you hunt. In fact the laws in the US are already pretty much geared towards this to discourage trophy hunting (even though that's not technically illegal). You can't sell the meat, and the department of fish and wildlife has wide leeway to search the homes of known hunters and fishers to keep them honest on this law. You bought the permit, you eat the meat. You can gift it to other people, but you need to be sure they have the paperwork certifying where it came from or both of you can get in trouble.

Also, a lot of hunting tactics people might think are legal are actually poaching, and thus very much illegal. Setting bait? Illegal in the state I live in, and considered unsporting by the majority of hunters anyway. Setting traps? I'm pretty sure you need a special license for that, and whether they will issue one at all probably depends greatly on the species. Lead pellets aren't allowed in waterfowl hunting anymore, to protect predator species like hawks that were being poisoned to death by heavy metals. Doe hunting? Allowed, but they only issue a limited number of permits per year for ecological reasons, and its on a first come first serve basis. You aren't allowed to hunt during mating season at all. Buck hunting permits are far easier and cheaper to come by. And even if you are hunting bucks, you have to be careful to count the points on their antlers, because not all age categories are acceptable to cull. All of these ecological factors have already been taken into account by the law, at least in this country. This is why I find jokes about hunters to just be unfunny, because its clear most people who crack them have no idea what the hunting laws actually say, or what hunting culture is actually like. The truth will always be funnier than stereotypes.

Bringing wolves back into the wild is absolutely a good thing, but its a slow process, and meanwhile deer are herbivores so they breed like crazy. And anyone who even entertains the idea that there is something unsporting about rifle hunting clearly has never tried it. You are lucky to even see a deer, let alone take a shot at one. The animals can smell you, their hearing is superior to human hearing, they make less sound while walking, and they know what time of year it is. Good luck. You need it.

(oh, and as far as the "animal fights back" joke goes, I have one word: moose. That is all.)

[madd0ct0r]

You are answering the wrong argument.

This is not about animal quality of life. Being hunteda d eaten by a wolf sucks if you are a deer.

It's about equity. No animal shall be hunted without a reasonable chance of placing the hunter in equivalent danger. No person should be unable to hunt through lack of funds or access, hence regular releases of animals in urban areas.

[Elheru Aran]

...the question though is how much danger humans are actually in from these animals. There's a reason we mostly hunt deer and small game-- they aren't dangerous. Stuff that generally tends to run away from you when it sees you is much safer than stuff that thinks you're lunch.

All this would do is eliminate hunting as a hobby because people will decide 'fuck that'. Instead, it becomes an extreme sport.

[Formless]

Exactly. Its a fucking stupid argument with no basis in facts, ethics, or sportsmanship. A bowhunter is in no danger from a deer or elk because deer and elk instinctively flee predators, they do not attack! Moose and hogs are a different story, but even rifle hunters are aware that there is a risk when hunting moose (as moose are known to shrug off bullets long enough to attack you), and some prefer to hunt feral pigs with short barreled rifles or shotguns because the terrain they live in can sometimes let the pig get the drop on you. You definitely don't want to hunt moose with a bow. I don't think the law even lets you. Also, don't forget that in North America anywhere you can hunt these animals (barring hogs), you are also in mountain lion and brown bear territory (even polar bear territory farther north), so there is already a risk non-hunters aren't informed about.

And as for releasing them into urban areas, get the fuck out. We've already pushed into their native environment so far that in some suburbs, cougars are regularly seen in people's yards. Same for deer. This is not good for the animals any more than it is for the people who moved in there (as it dramatically increases the risk of them getting hit by cars), and also makes reintroducing wolves even harder than it already is. The joke is only funny if you are a clueless British prick. I bet even continental Europeans know better, because hunting is a fairly popular pastime still in some European countries.

major edit: oh, and as for equity due to money, good bowhunting equipment is just as expensive if not more so than rifle hunting is, and it takes considerably more skill to hunt with a bow. Old style wooden bows aren't cheap either because few people practice the traditional crafts needed to make them that way. No matter what, hunting is a hobby that will take money to get into. Money for equipment, money for the license, money to test the deer and elk for prion diseases similar to mad cow...

[bilateralrope]

money for the license,

Which then gets into the question of: What does the money spent on hunting licenses get used for ?

I remember reading that, in at least one country, the hunters are doing more for the environment than any hikers in the area because the hunting licenses fund environmental protection programs. While the hikers aren't funding anything.

[Elheru Aran]

money for the license,

Which then gets into the question of: What does the money spent on hunting licenses get used for ?

I remember reading that, in at least one country, the hunters are doing more for the environment than any hikers in the area because the hunting licenses fund environmental protection programs. While the hikers aren't funding anything.

Typically they're a major source of funding for the DNR of the state concerned and goes towards maintaining healthy animal populations, protecting endangered species and generally taking care of the outdoors.

[bilateralrope]

You are answering the wrong argument.

This is not about animal quality of life. Being hunteda d eaten by a wolf sucks if you are a deer.

It's about equity. No animal shall be hunted without a reasonable chance of placing the hunter in equivalent danger. No person should be unable to hunt through lack of funds or access, hence regular releases of animals in urban areas.

Why do you want to increase suffering to everyone, person or animal, involved in hunting ?

Including the unwilling participants who get attacked by the animals you released into urban areas. Or bystanders who get hit by people who claim to be hunting those animals.

If you want hunting to be reduced, you restrict the number of available licenses. Or maybe a quota system on how many animals get killed. Yes, that's going to make it into an expensive hobby. But do you know how much a bow suitable for hunting costs ?
You made an argument that relies on bows being cheap. So I'd like you to provide some evidence towards what they really cost.

If you want hunting to be stopped, ban it.

If you're going to allow it, best to make it as ethical as possible. Which means minimizing animal suffering.

[Jub]

But do you know how much a bow suitable for hunting costs ?
You made an argument that relies on bows being cheap. So I'd like you to provide some evidence towards what they really cost.

Technically if the right type of tree grows near you it's the cost of some hand tools and your time... Humanity survived a hell of a long time before it could kill an animal with a bow it bought at Walmart. Cheaper alternatives to bows would be an atlatl (far easier to craft), a spear, a group of friends with rocks, a cliff, etc.

In terms of a humane kill, shouldn't we be forcing hunters to use tranquillizer darts and then fully anaesthetize the animal before killing it? That's more humane than the potential of a missed shot and allows for misidentified animals to be released rather than killed.

[Elheru Aran]

In terms of a humane kill, shouldn't we be forcing hunters to use tranquillizer darts and then fully anaesthetize the animal before killing it? That's more humane than the potential of a missed shot and allows for misidentified animals to be released rather than killed.

No. Tranquilizers don't work like they do on television. You have to account for much more than just loading a dart if you want to be anything like ethical. If you get the dose wrong, the animal dies anyway. And they don't work instantly, so the animal is likely to still run around for a good while.

If you're hunting bucks and you shoot a doe by accident, what you do is you pay a fine and you take the doe home for meat. Maybe you use up your tag in the process so no more deer hunting that season, it varies on the state. Most people don't deliberately shoot the wrong animals.

[madd0ct0r]

Both Formless and Bilateralrope have accused me of wanting to reduce hunting and have gone off on tangent arguments against that strawman. In the context of this thread I am not aiming to reduce hunting. I am aiming to increase it. Let me restate my position more clearly.


Starting position is
Axiom 1. Being periodically engaged in a hunt/struggle for life is a good thing.

2. This applies to both sides of the struggle, but is only meaningful when the result of who survives is reasonably uncertain.

3. Both sides of the struggle extends to non human participants. A bear hunting a man is just as meaningful as a bear hunting a deer or a man hunting a bear.

4. As an axiomic good, it behoves a society to arrange things such to increase the amount of this hunting and ensure any who wish to take part can do so.

5. As an axiomic good, we discount the wishes of those who do not want to participate in the activity OR who want it stacked so heavily in their favour to loose meaning. If you don't want the thrill of survival pumping in your veins periodically from a close call, move to a different country.

6. This is not about utilitarian methods to minimise suffering. Suffering is discounted, except where it reduces axiom 1+2. An example might be a person with disabling arthritis who would be entitled to an assistance program in order to be able to hunt meaningfully. Likewise wounded but otherwise escaped deer should be healed to maximise their chance at struggle.

The responses

Formless argues that bows are more cruel then expanding jacket bullets. This is true. It is irrelevant.

Formless argues that hunting is deeply ecological and jokes about hunters are not funny. This is true in some contexts. It is irrelevant.

Formless argues that reintroduction of wolves is a slow process,and that hunting for herd culling for deer is needed in the short term. My response to this is that if elected with the will of the people behind Axiom 1, then reintroduction can be vastly sped up. There would be less stakeholders quibbling and general support for a tax to pay for lost livestock as long as it increases the net amount of hunting. In the meantime herd culling, as a seperate thing unrelated to hunting would continue.

Formless argues that the "difficulty" of gunpowder deer hunting is high enough to be meaningful in itself. Elehru makes the more cogent argument that no hunting of deer is meaningful in the sense I describe as they will always flee rather then defend themselves. Both agree that moose are sufficiently dangerous to be meaningful when hunted with a gun. Proposal accepted.
For buck hunting with a bow, I'd have to accept your argument. It is possible that reducing the weapon to a knife would give the buck a meaningful experience, just as they have against wolves, but I accept the difficulty of running down a buck armed only with a knife is too high to make the common experience credible.
Feeding deer hormones to make them more aggressive seems outside the spirit of the proposals. I welcome suggestions in line with the axioms.

Formless argues I am underestimating the danger due to the possibility of cougar or bear attacks. He states this is a risk non-hunters aren't informed about. I assume he does not mean that hikers in those areas are unaware or unwarned. At a rough guess, I would say this makes a day of hunting deer as meaningful as a day hiking? This varies of course, depending on wether the cougar is hunting the same deer as you or has been scared off by hunting parties, and if the hikers are on busy trails or deep wilderness. There is the other danger aspect that hunters shoot other hunters, but this is not meaningful and can be discounted.
Does a long solo hike with risk of injury count as a meaningful struggle under the axioms? Does free climbing? Should it? Or is it merely russian roulette with a prettier background?

Formless argues that the equipment cost and license cost remain a limiting factor for people to participate in the good that is hunting. Bilateral rope agreed. Jub notes a bow can be made from found materials for very little (and that has also been my experience. The bamboo was free. The time to shape and laminate it was an afternoon. It was not a great bow, but adequate with same range and accuracy as the fibreglass ones at school. I did not take it hunting as the only large animal in jungle nearby was an endanged primate. Every thing else had already been eaten.). Walmart has bow's from $30.
If we limit ourselves to the agreed dangerous enough to be meaningful interactions, pigs, moose, wolves ect (crocodile?) then guns are the equipment used, although people could use bows or spears if they feel it would enhance the experience I suppose. The simplest equitable way would be a library model. Provide a licence to those who apply paid for from taxation. The hunting gun would be lent free of charge from same location you go to activate your license for a hunt. With it being an axiomically good thing to do, a license system would still be needed as now to avoid depopulation and loss of future hunting experiences.

[LadyTevar]

money for the license,

Which then gets into the question of: What does the money spent on hunting licenses get used for ?

I remember reading that, in at least one country, the hunters are doing more for the environment than any hikers in the area because the hunting licenses fund environmental protection programs. While the hikers aren't funding anything.

Typically they're a major source of funding for the DNR of the state concerned and goes towards maintaining healthy animal populations, protecting endangered species and generally taking care of the outdoors.

This is what West Virginia uses the hunting fees for. It also runs the WV Game Farm, a zoo just for native animals, as well as paid for the re-introduction of Elk to recovered Strip-Mine sites.

[LadyTevar]

Both Formless and Bilateralrope have accused me of wanting to reduce hunting and have gone off on tangent arguments against that strawman. In the context of this thread I am not aiming to reduce hunting. I am aiming to increase it. Let me restate my position more clearly.

I'll tell ya what, Madd0ct0r, this is seriously showing that you've NEVER BEEN HUNTING in your whole life, and have never lived in a CULTURE where hunting is the norm.

Why do you think some hunters resort to baiting deer with corn? To get them close enough to shoot. (Personally, I think it's a shitty thing to do, because in winter deer can die from corn blowing up their guts.)

Second - you seem to have no idea what a deer in an urban setting can do. I got EXTREMELY LUCKY a couple weeks ago when 3 deer crossed in front of my car. I was able to hit the brakes hard enough that when I hit the fawn, it wasn't hard enough to leave a dint. IF I'd not been able to brake fast enough, if it had been the doe, or a buck, I'd have totaled the front end of my car.
Yes, my mom likes to see the neighborhood doe feeding her fawns in the yard, or teaching them how to listen for danger and which yards don't have dogs to bother them. However, it means they're no longer running when my car comes down the road, or even running when a neighbor gets within 30yards of them to watch them. That's going to be a problem.

Third - "Introduce Wolves!" Yeah... like the coyotes in WV aren't doing their own share? They are, you know. And on rabbits and squirrel and other small prey. So, besides Black Bear, who are making a very strong comeback in WV, and the coyotes, and the Cougar... you forgot the Rattlers and Copperheads. You forgot the 50+ men climbing 30ft up into a tree-stand, and then falling and injuring or killing themselves various ways (hanging upside down and dying of asphyxiation is one). Then there's the jackasses who go out on ATVs and wreck them. Nothing like having to go find why your husband's not home yet, and have him found in the woods beneath a tipped-over ATV. Again, asphyxiation, mixed with broken bones. I signed both those death certificates, btw. We won't get into the "hunting Accidents" where someone shot someone else, thinking the noise in the bushes was a deer (or bear). Blaze Orange doesn't really stand out like it should sometimes.

Cost of Equipment. And you think you can MAKE A BOW for FREE?!?! You stupid asshole, how much does a wood-planer cost? You know, the thing you need to smooth the wood down? Or do you think you can just whittle a bow down with a pocket knife? Do you think Joe Average has that skill?
Oh, and yes, Walmart does have bows for $30 -- for CHILDREN to use in TARGET PRACTICE. Do you really think a 15lb bow can shoot an arrow far and hard enough to take down a deer? Hell, my 25lb recurve couldn't do that, unless the damn deer was only 20m away! In the woods, you don't get that close to a Deer. 50-100m is damn close. There's no way in hell my 25lb recurve can throw an arrow 100m, without me trying a Clout Shot.
A GOOD HUNTING BOW will cost the same amount as a GOOD HUNTING RIFLE, and ammo is actually cheaper than buying arrow shafts, having them fitted to your draw-length, buying the right tips for the arrows, and then the sheer PRACTICE it takes to be able to place your arrow on target. There is a REASON WHY we no longer use bow&arrow for the military. It goes the same for hunting -- guns are easier to target and fire.

So, MadD0c. Bow Hunting Season in WV starts Sept 26. Firearms start Nov 23-Dec 6, with muzzleloaders Dec 14-20. Bow season ends Dec 31.
Come put your money where your mouth is. I can get permission to hunt five different properties, just so you can try out your ideas.
Or, you can admit you're talking out your ass, and go STFU.

[bilateralrope]

Axiom 1. Being periodically engaged in a hunt/struggle for life is a good thing.

Please show that this applies in regards to the hunting you propose. Especially in the context of a wounded animal that will slowly die from its wounds.

This is the core of your argument. If you can't back this up, everything else falls apart. So go ahead and justify it.

[madd0ct0r]

Replying to Lady Tevar

Honestly and genuinely, all thread dramatics aside I genuinely would love to see West Virginia. After three months lockdown, two weeks sitting quietly in a wood miles from everyone failing to kill anything sounds lovely. I'm not making it up, but your president currently won't let me.

"Travel to USA is subject to entry restrictions

British nationals cannot enter the USA if they have been in the UK, Ireland, Schengen zone, Iran, Brazil or China within the previous 14 days"

But back to the thread. And yes, there is a joke buried in all this but hunting is not target. There is an interesting culture thing here that all the American hunters are very defensive on a culture and are accusing me of punching down. Hunting in the UK is the preserve of chinless toffs and nouveau riche, not an embattled underclass.

Now on your points
2) urban deer being semi-domesticed is a menace? Better hunt them then! Can't be such a road hazard of life expectancy of days.

3) lots of other things happening that are dangerous, in an incidental sense. Flipping an ATV hardly counts as meaningful struggle between two lives. Same for falling out of a tree.

4) make a bow for free. Well. I did. Shrug. Helps to be in a bamboo zone.
A small cheap handplane is a few dollars, but the one I made I used a kitchen knife as a spokeshave, and twine and windlass for clamps. Pva glue still. Maybe that's not an average Joe skill, but I addressed that deer and bows failed to satisfy the axioms and proposed a library loan system for hunting equipment in the previous post.

5) arguments about difficulty again.

[madd0ct0r]

Axiom 1. Being periodically engaged in a hunt/struggle for life is a good thing.

Please show that this applies in regards to the hunting you propose. Especially in the context of a wounded animal that will slowly die from its wounds.

This is the core of your argument. If you can't back this up, everything else falls apart. So go ahead and justify it.

Yes. We get to the meat of it.

It must take time, it cannot be instant because then there is no struggle. Just a coin flip of a ranged shot that hits of misses.

There must be an equity of risk, so if a wild animal will likely die of even a minor cut while a human hunter gets treatment, that falls through. It's bedtime here though, so I'll have a good think and try to satisfy you tomorrow.

[Gandalf]

But back to the thread. And yes, there is a joke buried in all this but hunting is not target. There is an interesting culture thing here that all the American hunters are very defensive on a culture and are accusing me of punching down. Hunting in the UK is the preserve of chinless toffs and nouveau riche, not an embattled underclass.

I always assumed they get defensive on it because it's easier than addressing why food security is so poor that they need to slaughter their way through nature.

[madd0ct0r]

But back to the thread. And yes, there is a joke buried in all this but hunting is not target. There is an interesting culture thing here that all the American hunters are very defensive on a culture and are accusing me of punching down. Hunting in the UK is the preserve of chinless toffs and nouveau riche, not an embattled underclass.

I always assumed they get defensive on it because it's easier than addressing why food security is so poor that they need to slaughter their way through nature.

That is unfair and should be retracted. If you live in the countryside, and deer need culling, why would you think anything of that, anymore then I would going out coppicing or picking wild garlic in the woods near me? For others like dick Cheney, it's an outdoor hobby and bonding activity like hiking.

Others on this thread have long argues that high quality, serious, hunting equipment is expensive to buy and keep supplied, so it's not going to be an argument that hunting is needed for food security.

[LadyTevar]

But back to the thread. And yes, there is a joke buried in all this but hunting is not target. There is an interesting culture thing here that all the American hunters are very defensive on a culture and are accusing me of punching down. Hunting in the UK is the preserve of chinless toffs and nouveau riche, not an embattled underclass.

I always assumed they get defensive on it because it's easier than addressing why food security is so poor that they need to slaughter their way through nature.

That is unfair and should be retracted. If you live in the countryside, and deer need culling, why would you think anything of that, anymore then I would going out coppicing or picking wild garlic in the woods near me? For others like dick Cheney, it's an outdoor hobby and bonding activity like hiking.

Others on this thread have long argues that high quality, serious, hunting equipment is expensive to buy and keep supplied, so it's not going to be an argument that hunting is needed for food security.

Yes, hunting in Britain has always been the Hoity-Toity, while running snares and fishing weirs have been the underclass answer. But Britain is not the whole world, and the US Hunting Mindset is a completely different ball of wax. You seriously cannot compare the two.

In WV, hunting is a Cultural Thing, passed down from father to son (and sometimes daughter) for the last 8 generations or more. Before the 1950s, if you wanted food, you grew it or hunted it. With most farms unable to support more than a single cow or couple of pigs, wild game was the backup for meat. Thus, it started as Food Security, and became a Tradition.
Now, with US wages in the cellar and prices of beef rising, wild game is again starting to become Food Security, especially for those needing to rely on Food Stamps, Food Pantries, and other Charity. "Hunters for the Hungry" is one charity working to give hunters a way to share their kills. Works best with the Trophy Hunters, who just want the largest rack and have been known to leave the meat and just take the head.

This Culture of Hunting is also why many hunters are able to get around buying Expensive Hunting Equipment, because we have our Daddy's or Granddaddy's rifle handed down to us, and cared for so it'd keep shooting straight. For example, my big brother has dad's 3 deer rifles, plus his M1-Garand, because he was the most interested in hunting. I got the 4-10 Shotgun, for 'personal protection'. I forget which ones my lil brother got.

[LadyTevar]

Replying to Lady Tevar

Honestly and genuinely, all thread dramatics aside I genuinely would love to see West Virginia. After three months lockdown, two weeks sitting quietly in a wood miles from everyone failing to kill anything sounds lovely. I'm not making it up, but your president currently won't let me.

"Travel to USA is subject to entry restrictions

British nationals cannot enter the USA if they have been in the UK, Ireland, Schengen zone, Iran, Brazil or China within the previous 14 days"

Oh yes, I know the restrictions, as I still am in touch with Nitram's parents, as well as SCA friends who were supposed to be going to England for various study opportunities.
If by some chance after Covid you can make your way here, I'd be glad to show you around.

[Jub]

In an interesting note, it turns out BC has banned the use of wireless trail cameras in hunting. I have no idea how common their use is and how enforcable that may be, but it's the law. I only found out about this from a work email letting our team know about the new change so we can inform customers.

[His Divine Shadow]

In the nordic countries, hunting is typically a working class thing as well. Almost all hunting rights are controlled via local hunting clubs and almost all hunters in the area join them in order to get access to hunting rights. Membership is often based on being a member of the same municipality.

Though rich germans and the like have long used the nordic countries as vacation places for going on hunting trips, guess it's a way to get some money, thogh I don't like the commercialization of... well anything at all I guess. And this falls under the category of everything.

[LadyTevar]

In the nordic countries, hunting is typically a working class thing as well. Almost all hunting rights are controlled via local hunting clubs and almost all hunters in the area join them in order to get access to hunting rights. Membership is often based on being a member of the same municipality.

Though rich germans and the like have long used the nordic countries as vacation places for going on hunting trips, guess it's a way to get some money, thogh I don't like the commercialization of... well anything at all I guess. And this falls under the category of everything.

The rich usually go hunting out in the Western US, where there's bison, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and the larger mule deer. They're "Trophy Hunters", wanting something big they can brag about. WV has some trophy whitetail bucks, but black bear aren't as impressive as a brown or grizzly bear.

[bilateralrope]

Axiom 1. Being periodically engaged in a hunt/struggle for life is a good thing.

Please show that this applies in regards to the hunting you propose. Especially in the context of a wounded animal that will slowly die from its wounds.

This is the core of your argument. If you can't back this up, everything else falls apart. So go ahead and justify it.

Yes. We get to the meat of it.

It must take time, it cannot be instant because then there is no struggle. Just a coin flip of a ranged shot that hits of misses.

There must be an equity of risk, so if a wild animal will likely die of even a minor cut while a human hunter gets treatment, that falls through. It's bedtime here though, so I'll have a good think and try to satisfy you tomorrow.

Why limit this to hunting animals ?

If you're limited to hunting animals, you're not going to be able to get away from the inequality of humans being more intelligent. Nor the hunters ability to choose when to engage and when to stay somewhere that the animal can't reach.

Move to hunting humans and that inequality goes away.

Lets run hunting humans through your axioms:
1 - Yep. This would get people periodically involved in struggles for their life.
2 - The hunter can courier the hunted identical gear to what the hunter is using before the hunt begins.
3 - Not applicable, as this scenario is limited to human participants
4 - Definitely applies.
5 - "we discount the wishes of those who do not want to participate in the activity". So no, you can't opt out of being hunted.
6 - Not applicable, as I haven't said anything about the specific equipment being used.

Though that still has the issue of the rich asshole hunter getting to choose who they hunt. So lets remove that by moving onto human bloodsports. Two competitors are picked and placed into an arena, until one of them is dead.
Lets run through your axioms:
1 - Yes. This is a periodic struggle for life.
2 - Pick roughly even competitors and give them the same weaponry and you can make the outcome very uncertain. Or maybe you give one an equipment advantage to make up for some other disadvantage.
3 - Not applicable, as this scenario is limited to human participants
4 - This axiom sounds like it's demanding the bloodsports
5 - "we discount the wishes of those who do not want to participate in the activity". So no, you can't opt out of being thrown into the arena.
6 - Not applicable, as I haven't said anything about the specific nature of the combat.

So, do you want to say that support humans hunting humans or human death arenas ?

Or is there some factor in your morality that you haven't stated yet ?