I'm a bit disappointed that in this discussion, most folks seem to ascribe to the lowest standard for hunting behavior, i.e., if it's legal, then it's OK. A lot of stuff is legal, but not necessarily ethical. For example, in this state, it's legal to shoot a deer that has its antlers locked with another buck preventing its/their escape. It's legal to shoot a deer if it's tangled in a fence and can't get away. Would it be ethical to do so. Not in my book. The ethical thing to do is to break them apart or cut away the wire. Additionally, some regulations are ambivalent regarding what is legal. For example, in my state, it's legal to bait in half of it, illegal to bait in the other half. What? Why?
I don't see the concept of fair chase raised in many of these discussions. In a nutshell, the concept of fair chase has to do with not engaging in practices and behaviors that reduce or eliminate the possibility for the animal to escape. The instances I just mentioned, for example, involve situations in which the animals cannot escape. (High fences accomplish the same thing.) Is it legal to kill them? It is in this state. Is it fair chase to do so? Nope. One might even extend the concept of fair chase to giving the animal a fair break in the interaction between the hunter and the hunted. After all, we do have most of the advantages and we're not talking subsistence here.
In 10-20 years, sometime in the future, we may reach consensus on the appropriateness of baiting. But individually, to develop our own ethics toward the animals we hunt, it might not be a bad idea to examine our attitudes and behaviors in light of the concept of fair chase.