Sharp_Coyote said:
Or better yet (and more $$), take a helicopter into a stocked, or at least prepared and controlled, sanctuar...erm...environment.

The dangers and effort are minimized, for maximum killing enjoyment. Kinda like glamping in a well-stocked RV.

Obviously, this kind of trek is for the wealthy degenerate; take away the $$ forked over, and I'd say that most 'normal' people who trophy hunt are actually sustenance hunting, while also keeping mementos. If not, back to me calling it poaching.

Absolutely agreed. It's very hard for me to dredge up respect for anybody who kills for fun. They can rationalize all day about how their blood-soaked passtime brings thousands of dollars to poor villages, but I don't buy it. It's an excuse to take the edge off a spoiled person's gross selfishness.

CCoyote said:
Absolutely agreed. It's very hard for me to dredge up respect for anybody who kills for fun. They can rationalize all day about how their blood-soaked passtime brings thousands of dollars to poor villages, but I don't buy it. It's an excuse to take the edge off a spoiled person's gross selfishness.

what about the ultimate irony of having the prey be another hunter who kills for sport, and vice versa? of course, those who hunt for food would be exempt, especially if they are respectful to their food (using every part, making sure it's quick, etc.) it is, after all, important to respect the one who feeds you, and that still holds true if the one that feeds you is a wild animal