A Hunter Called Out My Vegan Blog — Here’s My Response

... plus one important request I hope he’ll consider

Photo credit: Amir Hosseini

Not long ago, I received a response to my piece “Eating Animals is for Cowards.” It didn’t come as a quick comment or a tweet, but as a full article — written by Jim Colbert, a hunter who challenged some of the ideas I put forward.

What struck me most was Jim’s openness — he even noted about my article, “The most surprising aspect may be the extent to which I agree with the author.” He acknowledges the disaster of factory farming and the need for greater respect toward other species.

At the same time, Jim called out several points where he felt our views “diverge sharply.” As I’ll explain, I see these less as differences in opinion and more as a reflection of how deeply we’ve each explored the realities of animal agriculture — and the narratives that surround it.

I appreciate Jim’s willingness to enter this debate constructively — a rare quality in today’s discourse — and his courtesy in notifying me personally about his article. That openness deserves a thoughtful and respectful reply.

One thing up front

Before addressing Jim’s arguments, I want to clarify one crucial point: Even though Jim is a hunter, this conversation must focus on animal agriculture — not hunting — if it is to offer meaningful value to the broader society.

As Ed Winters insightfully puts it:

“Hunting is only viewed as sustainable because most people don’t get their food that way. If they did, it would be unbelievably unsustainable. We would wipe out entire species of animals in a matter of days and would quickly run out of food sources.”

Jim acknowledges this too, stating that for our global population of 8 billion people, “hunting is NOT the answer.”

Moreover, there are strong arguments against the common narrative that hunting is necessary or beneficial. While I won’t dive deeply into these here, some key points are worth highlighting:

1. Hunting is not needed for population control. More effective and natural solutions exist, such as reintroducing natural predators, which address the root causes and allow ecosystems to balance themselves. Hunting, by contrast, is a reactive measure.

2. Human exploitation of animals is the real driver of population imbalances. Wild predators have been decimated because they threaten farmers’ profits.

3. Overall, a plant-based food system is vastly more sustainable. It’s ironic to defend a culture of meat eating by citing deer overpopulation as a threat to biodiversity, when animal agriculture is actually the leading driver of biodiversity loss. Experts estimate that shifting to a plant-based food system could prevent the extinction of 155,000 species.

Addressing Jim’s Arguments

1) “Our species evolved as omnivores”

• That’s misleading framing. While it’s true that humans have consumed animal products for a long time, growing evidence suggests many of our ancestors were predominantly plant-based (see, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4). Yes, humans can eat meat — but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal, necessary, or ethical.

• We should focus on what keeps us healthy today. Major health and nutrition organizations affirm that balanced vegan diets are safe and healthy for all stages of life. Studies also show that plant-based diets are associated with lower rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic disease. Transitioning to a plant-based diet could save millions of lives and hundreds of billions in health care costs.

• Our ancestors are not ethical role models. Appealing to what prehistoric people did is a weak moral argument. Our ancestors also raped, murdered, enslaved, and tortured — yet we don’t cite those behaviors to justify anything today. Human moral progress has always been about overcoming our instincts, not blindly following them.

---

2) “Veganism depends on modern technology for supplements.”

• Meat eaters also depend on modern pharmaceuticals — even more than vegans. While it’s true that most vegans take one small B12 supplement, many non-vegans end up on multiple daily prescriptions for issues a balanced plant-based diet helps prevent. In fact, studies suggest vegans require significantly fewer medicines than meat eaters, debunking the myth that veganism means more modern pharmaceuticals.

• The appeal to “naturalness” is selectively applied and inconsistent. People justify killing animals by calling it “natural” while ignoring countless modern conveniences — smartphones, plumbing, hygiene — that are equally “unnatural.” After all, we’re having this discussion on Substack, a digital platform far removed from what cavemen would have found in the wild.

---

3) “A vegan diet also kills animals.”

• Yes, we know… Jim claims that it is a common belief among vegans “that meat eaters kill animals, while vegans do not.” That is simply not true. Every reasonably informed vegan fully understands that some animals also die during crop harvesting. The goal of veganism is not to eliminate all animal suffering — which would be unrealistic — but to reduce it “as far as is possible and practicable.”

• Veganism dramatically reduces total animal suffering and death. This topic has been extensively studied and debated. The consensus? A vegan diet leads to far fewer animal deaths overall. Most of the environmental problems Jim cites as harmful to animals — such as agricultural runoff polluting waterways — are actually largely caused by animal agriculture.

• A plant-based diet even reduces crop deaths. This might seem counterintuitive, but meat-based diets actually cause more crop deaths because much of the crops grown are used to feed livestock. It’s estimated that transitioning to a plant-based food system would shrink agricultural land use by about three-quarters — a massive win for wildlife and biodiversity.

---

4) “I respect your choice to be vegan, so please respect my choice to eat meat.”

• This comparison is unfair. While there’s no rational reason to oppose vegan choices — which are fundamentally about compassion and avoiding unnecessary harm — the consumption and normalization of animal products causes immense and unnecessary violence and destruction. Vegans don’t criticize these choices to put people down, but because real victims are involved who deserve our protection.

• The animal agriculture industry poses an urgent existential threat to humanity. This isn’t just about protecting animals. It’s also about confronting a system that harms the climate, the environment, and ultimately humanity itself. Standing up against that is not just justified — it’s also an act of self-defense.

---

5) “What about ethical meat?”

• This dream doesn’t match reality. Jim suggests raising animals in more natural, pasture-like settings as an alternative to factory farming. While this may sound appealing in theory, it has little to do with the actual state of animal agriculture today. In reality, the trend is moving further toward, not away from, industrial farming — with an estimated 99% of farmed animals in the U.S. living on factory farms.

• Pasture-raised animals are not a scalable solution. Even if we wanted to raise animals more “ethically,” it’s not a viable solution for a global food system. Animals raised in pasture-based systems require significantly more land, water, and other resources. Scaling such a model would require even more land than is already used — and animal agriculture is already the single largest human land user on Earth, driving deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate breakdown.

The Deeper Kind of Courage

Jim concludes with the line: “It’s important to have the courage to face the reality that, for you to live, other creatures including some animals, will die.”

Simply stating that “creatures will die” isn’t a sound ethical defense for unnecessary violence. That same logic could be used to justify any form of animal abuse. Yes, we live in an imperfect world — but that’s exactly why it’s all the more important to reduce harm where we can.

I believe the deeper courage lies elsewhere: in facing the uncomfortable truth that our species — and the norms we’ve built around consumption — have led us into a system of staggering and unnecessary cruelty. A system that not only causes immense suffering to animals but also threatens our own future through climate collapse, ecological breakdown, and public health crises. And that system urgently needs critical reflection — especially from people like you, Jim, who are willing to engage in serious conversation. Which leads me to …

One ask

Jim, as is common in pro-meat arguments, your reply includes a number of claims that have already been extensively studied and debunked. That’s not a judgment — these topics are underrepresented in education, and most of us grow up never questioning them. But when we engage in public debate, especially about a topic with real-world victims, it’s worth taking the time to critically examine whether the arguments we’re making actually hold up. There are excellent evidence-based resources that address all common objections to veganism — and just as I welcome any challenge to my reasoning, I ask that others be just as willing to test their own.

Even if you personally hunt, Jim, by continuing to consume and defend animal products — and attacking veganism with faulty arguments — you inevitably help normalize an industry that is utterly barbaric and inhumane. So why rely on hypothetical alternatives that simply don’t scale to a global population of 8 billion — especially when we already have solutions backed by overwhelming scientific consensus?

Moving towards a plant-based food system has the power to drastically reduce suffering, prevent deforestation, lower emissions, and feed more people with fewer resources. As studies show, it’s one of the single most impactful choices we can make for the planet. In a world of growing crises and shrinking time, we cannot afford to cling to outdated habits or cherry-pick excuses that ease our conscience. The cost is far too high.

That said, Jim — I appreciate your willingness to engage in this dialogue. It takes humility and openness to step into a conversation like this, and I sincerely thank you for it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, should you wish to continue.

Vegan Horizon is made possible by readers like you. If you'd like to support this project and help it grow, please consider joining as a free or paid subscriber.