What is considered unfair hunting?

While there are numerous ideas about what constitutes fair hunting and what doesn't, here are some commonly disputed methods.

Canned hunting is also known as hunting on shooting preserves or game ranches. To participate, hunters visit a privately-owned trophy hunting facility. Here, th­e owners breed or buy exotic and native species and keep them in captivity on their grounds. Customers pay to hunt within those grounds, ensuring they see the specific animals they came to hunt. There are over 1,000 of these preserves in the United States [source: the Humane Society].

­What can't you do on the Internet these days? A typical Internet hunting experience involves registering with a Web site, paying a deposit and subscription fee, and scheduling your hunting appointment. When your time slot appears, simply go the Web site and watch the screen to see the enclosed feeding station. The animal you chose to hunt is freed into the space, and you use the crosshairs in the screen to line up your shot. When you're ready, just click the mouse and a rifle is triggered. Thirty-five states have banned or put restrictions on Internet hunting [source: the Humane Society].

You've probably already heard of poaching. The loose definition of poaching is killing a member of an endangered or threatened species, hunting out of season, using an illegal weapon to hunt or leading a hunt unlicensed. For every animal legally hunted and killed, there is one poached [source: the Humane Society].

While less flashy than the others, baiting is nonetheless controversial. To bait, hunters put together piles of food to attract animals to a particular area (usually white-tail deer and bears). While banned many places to contain disease, it is also viewed as giving the hunter the upper hand by tricking animals into harm's way.

As with any controversial topic, there are always two sides. Read on to learn the defenses of such hunting methods.

When it comes down to it, what's ethical or fair is relative to each person. Because religion and culture are such strong influences in the decisions people make, there isn't always a clear right or wrong choice. A method of hunting th­at one person finds unfair might be perfectly just to someone who has different beliefs.

The biggest argument in favor of the "unfair" hunting methods is safety. Proponents believe that canned hunts can reduce accidents because hunters are aware of each other's positions. Public hunters have no way of knowing if another sportsman is hidden in the nearby brush. Safety is also a piece of the defense for Internet hunting.

Because no humans are operating guns by hand or present in the shooting area, Internet hunting basically ensures no accidents. But the main argument in favor of Internet hunting has to do with the rights of the disabled. We as a society strive daily to make the world as equal as possible for every human, and Internet hunting brings a new pastime to the disabled who would otherwise probably never be able to hunt [source: Grass Roots]. While animal protection movements don't always agree with this argument, they do recognize it as a consideration.

Overall, there is not an abundance of information specifically defending these methods, but there are arguments that defend the individual rights of citizens. For example, some supporters of controversial hunting methods feel that private property owners should be able to use their land as they choose.

At this point, there exists no cut and dry answer to the debate surrounding unfair hunting practices, but if you feel strongly one way or the other research ways to do your part. Both sides of the topic have outlets for your participation.