I fail completely to see why one 'use' of animals (Growing them for food and killing them) is somehow morally superior to other means of killing them for food (hunting). There seems to be no rational basis for the distinction - just the 'feeling' that one is necessary and the other is for sport and therefore repugnant. So the objection to hunting seems to be based solely on the idea that it's OK to kill animals (a necessary evil for the maintenance of society), as long as there is no sport involved. Why?
Hunting is a far more honorable and connected way to obtain food than reducing an animal to a plastic wrapped, portion controlled 'product' that excuses the squeamish from their own culpability in the death of the creature it was.