The difference being that with plants, you really don't have much of a choice. You have to eat something. Stalking deer, on the other hand, is definitely optional.

Yeah I am with you here. Except that I cannot stand the thought of killing plants. Unfortunately I have to eat something so I do not have much of a choice but to kill an animal to do so.

I try to not waste plant life. It's why I won't buy a live Christmas tree. Someone was just telling me how they kill their succulents and just buy new ones. That was about as offensive to me as if someone joked about how they kill their pet dogs all the time but buy new ones.

That runs both ways. Some people live on a meat-centered diet and hardly eat plants.

Plants give off a pulse when harmed and communicate with each other chemically to inform other plants in the area of insect infestations so they can try to chemically protect themselves. Just because your senses fail to detect the ways in which they express their suffering doesn't mean they are any less able to feel and express themselves than the creatures whose self expression is more readily understood by humans.

Let's apply that argument to killing humans now. Original post is getting at appreciation of this learning behavior. One may say the elk isn't doing this intelligently, drawing on examples such as dandelions which learn to not grow so tall after being mowed

I don't understand the application. Is it your stance that murderers are incapable of any appreciation for other humans? What about those who have killed others "justly", e.g. soldiers or executioners?

Are you suggesting that if he had claimed that he generally appreciates elks but not the ones he kills, would make more sense?

Nah, I'm suggesting that a decision to kill something is not necessarily the same as a decision to destroy something and may be motivated by more factors than simply how much one appreciates that thing. I appreciate the intricate webs that spiders weave and their impact on the other insect population around me but I will totally squish one if she happens upon me in the wrong situation. I imagine for hunters the appreciation of their prey's complex behaviours may even be part of the appeal.

Obviously then, you appreciate "having a clean, web-free house" more compared to the contribution of the webs in your home to the environment. Same same way, the hunter appreciates his hunting activity more compared to how much he appreciates his pray. Which makes the statement "I appreciate my pray" meaningless in the context of hunting. If you only hunt in a life threatening hunger situation, then obviously appreciate your own life more than the pray's. If you hunt for sports, then you appreciate your hobby more than your pray's life, and so on...

(I am a meat-eater, just pointing out something I find funny in such statements)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me again--I usually leave the webs in and around my house, I appreciate their beauty and their utility. I am not a hunter of spiders, for sport or otherwise. I offered the example only to show how in some contexts I might destroy something even though I appreciate it.

I believe we may each be using the word "appreciate" with subtly different definitions. I believe it's possible to appreciate aspects of a thing without necessarily collapsing them all into some sort of comparison of perceived total value. I think it's possible that someone who hunts for sustenance might also come to treat the activity as somewhat of a sport, or an art, and so come to appreciate aspects of the activity including the intelligent behaviours of the prey.

No I have not misunderstood you, maybe I haven't made myself clear enough(not a native English speaker here...). As you also say, the context itself is what matters. For example, today I would guess most e.g. Canadians do not hunt for survival. Having a Canadian hunter saying "I hunt elks for sports, but I appreciate them", is kind of funny and meaningless. In the context of hunting for sports, it is pointless to say "but I appreciate them". If you beat up your neighbor cause he attacked you with an axe, and you needed to save your life, it is pointless to say that you appreciate him. It is clear you did what you did, cause you appreciate your own existence more than him. It is equally pointless to say "but I appreciate him" after making clear that you beat him up, cause you din't like his face. In both cases, the context is clear and thus the level of appreciation to the other party. Stating "but..." is meaningless. That for, my understanding of what the level of appreciation of someone hunting for sports towards his pray, is that it is very low by my standards.

It's pretty common, reading memoirs of very proficient soldiers, who have killed dozens or hundreds in battle, that they are respectful and even admiring of their foes.

One example: Andy McNab. I actually really admire that about his writing. I've read some war stories where there's a lot of negative attitudes - he always calls out what his enemies did well and how it was nothing personal that he held against them.

OP was arguing that you can easily appreciate something and still kill it. The nature of the appreciation is secondary to the original argument.

I wish I had those dandelions in my yard when I was growing up.