I don't know, myself, but I am glad they will.
Here's why: The funds from that permit go to the Game and Fish Department and reduce the rates for other licenses or support the programs that keep game populations viable in the State.
It works much the same in Africa, where Big Game hunters from elsewhere shell out large fees for permits and guides/professional hunters to hunt exotic animals.
I can't see collecting beanie babies or sports memorabilia, either, but these guys are willing to shell out big bucks and provide a healthy infusion of cash into local economies for the privilege of hunting an exotic animal.
Because they do, game management programs are funded, not just for species which the locals would regard as destroyers of livestock, humans, or crops and which might be hunted to extinction by the locals because of that, but to protect those same species from poachers who would sell ivory or pelts or rhino horn for an aphrodisiac, or whatever.
The Game management gets funding to run the parks and manage the animals which bring in even more tourist dollars. They select older animals, culls from the herd to be fair game to hunt, and thus, manage the populations. The hunter gets their trophy, the locals get the meat. Win, win, win, unless you are talking about the animal harvested, which would likely either die or is superfluous to the gene pool of the local population.
Nature is not so smooth and pretty.
Any balance there is maintained at the loss of numerous individuals as predator/prey relationships are seldom perfect. If the predators are down, the prey animal population surges, limited only by food available. The predator population will surge afterward due to the lack or competition for prey animals, which creates excess pressure on prey (population drops), which in turn increases competition between predators, which drops the predator population.
It is more of a see-saw than a balance.
With a profit motive, and using legal, managed hunting as a tool (which incidentally generates revenue needed to manage game populations), that balance can be better established and maintained while still protecting the interests of local farmers, herdsmen, and villages.
To each there own. I don't understand $3000.00 purses, $50,000,000.00 paintings, or million dollar baseball cards, myself, but then I likely have some interest they would not understand or identify with, either.
I think most people understand spending a lot of money for purses, paintings or baseball cards even if they wouldn't do it themselves. But, a powerful desire to kill a defenseless animal not for food, but just to be destructive, is harder for most people to understand. Like I've said, maybe he could explain it better himself. Maybe he hates animals for some reason, but whatever it is, it's not normal.
If I wanted to donate money to preserve wildlife somewhere, I might do that, but why would I insist that I be able to execute a defenseless lion as part of the deal? That's the part that people aren't getting and that's the part he should try to explain.