ORONO – For James Tantillo, the bear-baiting debate is no debate at all.

“As long as it’s not hurting anybody, there’s no justification for banning these activities,” the hunting ethics lecturer argued during a University of Maine forum Monday afternoon.

Tantillo, an avid bird hunter who teaches environmental philosophy and ethics at Cornell University, was invited to address UMaine wildlife biology students as part of a lecture series.

But Monday’s controversial topic and Tantillo’s controversial views drew an unusually large crowd, including students and staff from other disciplines as well as wildlife professionals from the area.

Hunting is just like any other sport – a structured way to enjoy yourself, directed by arbitrary rules designed to make the task more challenging, Tantillo argued.

“Everybody plays the game differently,” he said. “There’s no rule in the cosmic sense that says ‘You shalt not.'”

Tantillo dismissed arguments about hunters communing with nature, hunting for food, helping with wildlife management or even boosting the economy as side issues and justifications used by hunters so they can enjoy the ultimate goal – the hunt and the kill.

“Otherwise, it’s just a walk in the woods, right?” he said.

But unlike many who would make such an argument, Tantillo believes that hunting to kill is a perfectly acceptable goal. Regardless of why humans enjoy killing animals, those are the rules of the game, he said.

In fact, even trophy hunting, which is often demonized by animal-rights activists, is just “a way of making the game more interesting” for an experienced hunter, Tantillo said.

Some hunters in the room found it offensive to take the “spirituality” out of hunting by calling it just one more game that humanity has devised to fill its time.

But in today’s culture, no American needs to hunt except for personal enjoyment, Tantillo argued.

“There are enough other ways to get meat. You go to the store and you buy your meat,” he said.

The speaker went on to argue that any hunting practice is ethically just as acceptable as another, as long as it doesn’t harm other people.

Those who oppose some hunting practices, such as baiting or hunting with hounds, don’t have ethical ground to stand on, Tantillo argued. They just don’t like the aesthetics of that style of hunting, he said.

“Much of what passes for discussions about ethics in this country is actually aesthetics,” he said.

Though several opponents of bear baiting attended Tantillo’s forum, none publicly challenged his sweeping claims.

“It really boils down to civil liberties,” Tantillo said. “Part of the point of liberty is allowing these activities that you don’t necessarily approve of.”