I think that it is ethically justifiable to kill animals, not only for food and clothing, but also for fun and sport.
Many people think that hunting for trophies is bad, and the only way to justify hunting is if you do it for food. Actually, the opposite is closer to the truth.
Let's take the example of deer hunting. If you are hunting for food, then you will target young deer. The flesh of old deer does not taste as good. However, if you are hunting for a trophy, it is the older deer with bigger antlers that you will target. Which is worse, to cut down an adolescent deer before it has even had a chance to really contribute to the gene pool, or to kill an old, experienced buck who has fathered many other deer and has lived a long, full life?
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with turning the slain deer into meat. If you feel like doing all the work, and if you like venison, fine (I myself am not a fan of venison). But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with cutting off the head for a trophy and then leaving the rest of the carcass to just rot. Nothing ever goes to waste in nature. Does it really make the act more moral if the corpse is eaten by a human, versus a coyote or a buzzard?
Also, the killing of an old, experienced buck has moral value that cannot be found in the slaughter of adolescent deer for food. Generally, the hunter who seeks food just goes to a deer farm, or to some semi-populated farming type community where the deer are more familiar with humans, are less afraid of humans, and hence are easier to kill. Then he just puts out a salt lick and blows away the first deer that is young and stupid enough to come out in the open. The more serious hunter must go deeper into the woods. The old buck being hunted has survived in nature for so long for the very reason that he has learned to be wary of humans and other predators. His senses are sharp, and he will flee at the first sign of man. The territory you are hunting him on is probably more familiar to him than it is to you; over his many years of experience, he has learned all of the trails like the back of his hand. Because it takes more practice and effort, serious trophy hunting has more value than killing for food.
If the young adolescent bucks knew what you were up, then they would certainly appreciate it. They certainly will experience the beneficial effects: the old bucks with the big antlers are the alphas of the pack, and by getting them out of the way, the younger bucks will gain more access to the females.
Deer don't have a retirement plan. What is worse? To just get older and older, until you eventually break a leg and die a slow and miserable death of exposure? Or, to be suddenly cut down at your peak, after a long, full life, by an experienced and serious hunter who respects his prey?
Once again, I repeat, merely eating the corpse does not justify murder. Jeffery Dahmer ate some of his victims, but most people think that this makes his crimes even worse. It certainly does not justify them.
In conclusion. A lot of people want to debate the ethics of killing animals for food. I respect their position, even if I don't agree with it. It probably takes some real determination to practice this ethic in a society that is dominated by the consumption of meat. On the other hand, I do not respect the attitude of those who want to excuse killing for food, mainly because they like meat and want to continue eating it, but who then go on to say there is something wrong with killing for pleasure. Certain types of killing for pleasure, like trophy hunting, have greater moral value than simply killing for food.