Excepting the San Francisco Zoo, you might be right...

I find all these discussions quite interesting, as they uncover the multitude of views on what constitutes ethical and/or merely enjoyable hunting.

My personal standard is that as long as a sustainable yield of species is maintained and kill methods are efficient {preventing needless pain} and management methods do not involve suffering of the crop or spread of disease, the METHODS OF MANAGEMENT OR CULLING don't bother me though some might not interest me and I might not involve myself in them for merely personal preference reasons. That's the old farmer/rancher in me coming out I suppose. Critters and land are, to me, resources to be managed. The management METHODS are unimportant from a moral standpoint, but must be established using local standards, traditions and possibilities {available skills, equipment, etc}.

What is acceptable in one community is totally unacceptable or possibly even illegal in another.

For example, some might say that shooting game behind a fence is "unsporting". Others might say that other methods are unsporting; the use of bait, or high seats, or feeders, or scopes, or rifles or compound bows, or hounds or vehicles, or helicopters or beaters, or, cover scents, or shooting at night or...or...or...

There are methods that do not appeal to me, but I do not believe any are "wrong", unless wanton waste is involved. Having said that, even some forms of what might be seen by some as wanton waste is acceptable for some particular management reason. Witness my leaving of ground squirrels for the eagles and Marrakai's leaving of buff meat for the ants. Looking in on any "farming" operation and passing judgement is very difficult. Local populations must decide what should occur in their areas, but establishing universal rules for game management is very difficult to say the least.