I will offer feedback but certainly expect others will also offer their opinions.

I, as a law-abiding and ethical hunter, and all people involved with wildlife management provide a moral obligation to ensure wildlife is properly managed.  Without proper wildlife management there would be inevitable population explosions leading to cruel deaths by starvation or even other lower food-chain animals being obliterated.  Allowing this would be immoral.

Killing an animal for a temporary pleasure of taste is not my reason for harvesting an animal.  I harvest an animal to assist in providing for my family.  I harvest an animal to enjoy what God has given us.  I enjoy hunting for the beauty of the earth.  I enjoy hunting for the exercise.  The great taste of wildlife meat is just a wonderful by-product. 

The elimination of all red meat from our diet would eliminate very essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals.  Replacing these can be accomplished with a vegan diet but must be well planned out.  This is not as easy as it sounds... and I see it as unneccessary.

I found an article but instead of quoting from it I will simply provide the link - http://ezinearticles.com/?Red-Meat---Good-Source-of-Nutrients,-Good-For-Health&id=2710341

I feel the best diet for me and my family is using both red meat and non-animal foods.  I even plan meatless meals regularly (I do the cooking for my family).

Plants are also living things.  The other side of this could be asked - Is it immoral for us to kill plants in order for the simple temporary great taste?  I emphatically say it is not immoral but actually is rather necessary for our wellbeing.

Bottom line - God created everything on this earth for us to be good stewards of.  Being a law-abiding and ethical hunter along with all those involved with wildlife management are good stewards.

I welcome your opinions.

Hey Guaco! I disagree with you 100%. Meat is a necessary part of everyone's diet. It is proven that meat is brain food. It helps our brain stay healthy. Second of all coming on to a hunting sight and saying you don't want to stir up trouble then throwing out a topic like that is like beating a large hornet's nest with a stick and not expecting to get stung. I would like to ask you what is your stance on abortion? What is your stance on God and religion? What religious orginization if any do you belong to and if you do belong to one do you practice it's standards and beliefs. Just curious here. Let me know

I guess I will bite also.  However, I do have to question your motivations for coming to a hunting website to discuss the morality of hunting.  What do you hope to achieve or get out of this discussion?  Although the language of your post was not overtly offensive, the manner in which you framed the debate, either intentionally or not, is antagonizing.  It appears that you are trying to limit the discussion to your two main points that:

1) the only morally justifiable killing of an animal is when it is necessary for human survival

2) by extension, since killing of animals is not necessary for survival, that leaves only taste (enjoyment?) as the only possible justification.  

By framing the discussion in this manner, you establish yourself as moral, and hunters as either amoral, at best, or immoral.  Limiting the discussion in this manner, again either intentionally or not, ignores the vast majority of the other possible dimensions to this debate or assumes that the morality of the other dimensions has already been established.  Thus, I reject the framework you have established for the debate.  

However, having said all that, I will try to address your arguments as presented.  As for your first point, the first counter-argument that comes to mind is that the very existence of the human population necessitates active wildlife management.  A critical component to successful wildlife management is a successful hunting program.  By actively managing wildlife populations, we minimize the suffering of wildlife by limiting or eliminating damage caused by over-population of key species.  By maintaining populations below or at the biologic carrying capacity of the land, herd health is maximized, and animal suffering (including killing of animals by hunting) is minimized.  

As for the second part of your argument as taste (enjoyment) as the only possible remaining justification for the killing of animals, I do not feel this is a logical extension of your argument according to the moral code that you established.  By trying to force the conclusion of the debate (that there is not in fact a justifiable reason to kill an animal), you invalidated the second part of your argument.  However, by treating the second part of your argument as an independent argument, I believe the establishment of other justifiable reasons for killing an animal also adequately addresses this argument.  

Morality like truth does not change. It is established by God.

Proverbs 12:27

"The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt."

But if you choose to be a vegan I will not condemn you. God in fact instructs us that it is ok to eat meat and ok to decide not to:

Romans 14 verses 2-4:

"One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them."