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.
Lions, elephants, hippos, rhinos, are hardly "defenseless", especially when the device employed is a crossbow. All of these animal species have been known to reduce the human population.
And no, I don't 'get' a $3000.00 purse when a $100.00 backpack carries more and better, nor, for that matter, any of the rest of it.
But it isn't my money, and I would no more say that someone could not participate in a lawful hunt of managed game or predator populations than I would say they couldn't spend a million on a small square of paper. It's their money, and they can spend it as they see fit.
I can understand that the future populations of what actually are dangerous animals in the wild has been guaranteed by their value in the scheme of things, not because they are essential to the planetary ecology (any more than other, now extinct predator species), but because of their importance to the local economy.
The locals will guarantee the viability of those animal populations to continue to receive the benefits from the desire of others to come there and hunt them.
They will put up with occasional losses of crops, livestock, and perhaps even an individual or two rather than just wipe out the problem species, because of people who are willing to shell out $50,000.00 or more to hunt just one individual animal.
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.
What people?
You keep calling lions "defenseless".
As an experiment, would you jump in the lion cage at the local zoo. You may take one pointy stick with you, less than 1/2 inch in diameter. If you live, then please tell me how "defenseless" that animal is.
If you want to donate money to the Game preserves, do so. If you want to go there and take pictures, go ahead. But let's get something straight.
These animals are not "defenseless".
For some, that may be part of the allure of engaging in such a primal human activity as hunting them, something which has been done since humans started being hunted by them and other predators.
You seem to have some other issue here, whether it is hunting, meat-eating, or whatever, I don't know.