If the sole purpose of the hunt is to bag a grizzly, then it is fair. If the hunter doesn't have the skill required to take down a grizzly on his own, he shouldn't be in the woods. If the bear takes out the dogs before the hunter is able to react, then what? What if the dogs are out chasing down one bear and another shows up behind you? Your survival should depend upon the weapon you're carrying and the skill to use it.
Then you go to places that have no boundaries. Those places do exist. Or you get permission from land owners to cross their land if need be. Or you find a well used trail and sit and wait.
Feeding an animal just so you can kill it while it's eating is not hunting.
This of course is just my opinion...
As I said before, it is not always about sport. It is about thinning out the herd of some species. So, though I don't do it, I am not worried about people feeding deer all year and then shooting them in deer season.
How is shooting deer after feeding them all year any different than when I raised hogs, and I did raise hogs, and fed them all year or more, just to shoot them and butcher them when I wanted? Same thing. If you don't want to call it huntin that is fine. But it is still a need.
Concerning a Grizzly bear, I think I would not go without another person. How is that for 'fair'. And if I had dogs for bear, I certainly would take them also. I would have an AK-47 with a 20 round clip in and another clip on hand already loaded. Plus I would have a 12 gauge pump shotgun with 00buck. And a 44 magnum pistol for back up. And the person with me would have the same.
Your sense of 'fair' places the hunter at the disadvantage. Which is fine, if that is they way 'you' would go out and get the grizz. Good luck.
Stranger