Ok, I'll be the dissenting opinion here. First off, if the guy was trying to get rid of ducks so that he could go bag another limit? Absolutely wrong. But merely giving away the ducks he shot should not be considered an immoral act in itself.
For perspective, I love cooking and eating wild game. Half the joy I get out of hunting is preparing and eating what I kill. I'll take deer and duck over beef, pheasant and quail over chicken, wild pig over domestic, and so on. In a good year, I'll only visit the butcher's counter 4-5 times (and I cook dinner for my girlfriend and I almost every night).
I do not, however, cook and eat what I kill out of some moral obligation of "I killed it, therefore I have to eat it." This mentality doesn't make sense to me, and is the cause of some of the outrageous cooking methods I see people use. Those who like to shoot ducks, but do not like the taste of it still feel morally obligated to eat them and wind up using some revolting combination of soy sauce, teriyaki, worchestershire sauce, cream cheese, jalapenos, bacon, and whatever else they can find to mask the flavor of the duck. What a waste of a delicious cut of meat. If someone is going to go to all that trouble to mask the flavor which they obviously don't like, why not give them to somebody that actually LIKES duck, and is not eating it out of some perceived obligation.
I agree with the basis of the idea, that an animal should not be wasted. If a guy shoots a limit of ducks only to throw them away? Detestable. But if he gives them to somebody else who will enjoy them, what's the problem? The animal is not going to waste, and will hopefully go to somebody who likes duck.
I only shot 3 ducks this weekend. Had i been in that parking lot, I would have gladly taken them, thanked him, and gone home and cooked a very nice dinner.