Is it acceptable, in principle, to shoot wild animals as a sport? The ethical controversy around recreational hunting is not only of academic interest but plays an important role in public and political discussions concerning the legitimacy of hunting. For the hunter, hunting is typically imbued with a perception of deeper meaning. For ardent non-hunters it may be hard to understand the meaning of enjoying nature by shooting at other living beings. This lack of mutual understanding makes it difficult to create a dialogue. However, the issue is not just about whether or not to accept hunting but also the specific forms of hunting. The aim of the paper is to explore the attitudes at stake in debates about a controversial form of hunting: shooting of birds that are farm reared and subsequently released for the purpose of being hunted. The paper is based on a nationally representative survey (web-based questionnaires) of different Danish stakeholders. Results show that a majority of the general public is primarily against the practice; a majority of hunters are pro, and landowners somewhere in between. Reasons may be found in relation to views on wildlife, naturalness and what constitutes ‘proper’ hunting. Moreover, differences in expression of one’s fundamental values toward wildlife may help to explain differences found in views. This type of recreational hunting challenges traditional hunting/anti-hunting arguments, such as hunting being acceptable when based on sustained yield ‘harvest’ principles, and raises a discussion about the ethical acceptability of providing food from ‘the wild’.