This is a very difficult subject. I want to agree with Rookhawk, but frankly, I can't. Here's why.
Very little in life is black and white. As I get older, I tend to find that almost every subject, and every thing, exists on a spectrum. Yes, there are pictures that offend me, but they might not offend many - or even most - other hunters. Some don't offend me but will offend others. Some people believe any amount of blood in a picture is unacceptable (I've had people look at pictures of me with a dead lion and ask "is he alive"!), while others accept it a part of the reality that is hunting. Some people have a more well developed sense of "silliness" than others, and it might come out in pictures. Some people "pose" animals while others prefer more natural pictures - have you seen the baboon pictures on this site? How many of those would qualify as "respectful", by whatever definition? I think you get the picture (no pun intended!).
It's easy to talk about ethics as well, but who gets to decide? There was a time when rifle scopes were thought unethical. There was a time when semi-automatic guns were thought unethical. In some (most?) countries, it's considered unethical (and illegal) to shoot an animal from a vehicle. In South Africa, hunting vehicles are equipped with shooting benches!
Given this, who is to be the judge of what is acceptable and what isn't? And make no mistake, you will need a judge, since we won't all agree. So now we have a judge, who tells us what is acceptable and what is not, according to a rule, or maybe a whim, or a mood.
So far so good, I guess, if you don't mind giving up some of your freedom to act as you see fit. But here comes the best part.
There is no hunting picture, of any type, that will satisfy the antis. So you've limited our freedom of expression, to what end? The antis will still hate you (us) because they won't accept hunting. They aren't rational. They don't care about poor people, or protein deprived people, or people who need to protect their livelihoods, or people who simply enjoy a legal activity.
So in the end you won't have served any real purpose, but we will all be arguing over whether some picture is or is not acceptable. And as we do that, we will attack each other, and make enemies of people who should be allies, and again, to what end?
Is this easy? No. Even I can't be consistent with my own rational views (he said about himself), as I've just expressed them. There are pictures that are so heinous that even the majority of non-hunters who are content to allow us to pursue our sport would find them objectionable. Pictures of animal cruelty. People intentionally wounding animals to provide a charge for video. So what I try to do is this: I turn away, I don't reproduce them, and if I'm in control, I might even bury them. But unless it's really an egregious case, I try real hard not to attack the hunter that might have had a different perspective than I had.
