Is the story making an argument for, or against hunting?

If you really look at the story and when it was written, you will understand that the story isn't really about hunting as a sport, but rather, the moral wrongs of hunting men. Connell writes this story in response to his experiences during WWI and makes numerous statements directly related to the happenings that occurred after the fall of the Russian Czar when the Communists drove the Cossacks out of the country, hunting and murdering them along the way. Thus, the hunting of "men" in the story by Zaroff. Zaroff had successfully avoided the same end as many of his compatriots, but it seems his experiences warped his sense of morality.

In the end, Connell's story speaks to both questions.... leaving us to think about moral issue of hunting for sport, and also about the act of war and its effects.