But I also believe the conversation could shine an interesting light on some contradictory attitudes, particularly in regards to the ethics discussion. For example, if population control is one of the key considerations for liberal hunting regulations, then doesn’t a strict, ethical high-road that effectively reduces the likelihood of the kill (the "sporting chance") run counter to that purpose?
Still, I believe you have to temper those high standards with pragmatism. Just as most of us have personal goals in the hunt, there are other goals that are sometimes equally important. In fact, I’d argue that in some cases, wildlife management goals should supersede the individual aesthetic.