Trophy hunting is not ethical????
Halo--with all respect, not sure how you've come to your decision that trophy hunting is not part of ethical hunting. I think you may find that yours is a minority opinion.
As I said previously (post #36 in this thread), in some areas trophy hunting provides employment, food, and the monetary wherewithal to preserve the habitat and discourage poaching. It is often used as a profitable way to keep game herds from over-populating their territory. Not sure how that's unethical.
I think we can agree that there's illegal hunting (poaching, hunting over the limit, etc.) that no ethical hunter can approve. Most hunting laws cover situations--hunting does when they're likely to be pregnant or nursing their young--that would also make the ethical hunter queasy.
Violating safety rules (ridge-line shots) or trespassing also sits poorly with ethical hunters--though I'm not sure these are truly ethical considerations as much as legal, politeness and safety ones.
I would consider UNethical hunting things like taking a shot when the risk of wounding and losing the animal (or another animal in the herd, if applicable) is substantial. That risk is always there, to some extent, but minimizing it (get closer, wait for a clear opening or don't take the shot) is always a high hunting consideration. And shooting a chained bear (as Teddy Roosevelt so famously refused to do) is the epitome of unethcal hunting--not even worthy of the word hunting, actually.
Everyone may, within the law, choose what they would and would not feel comfortable hunting, and by what manner they'd like to hunt. But personal preference does not define ethical and unethical. (I choose not to bow-hunt, mostly because of lack of skill with the bow, but partly because the slowly-bleed-to-death result of a good shot makes me personally uncomfortable. But I recognize the long tradition of bowhunting, and any bowhunter who is within the law and only takes the shots he feels WILL collect the animal IS an ethical hunter in my book).