This is really very straightforward, and trophy hunting isn't the issue:
Killing lions isn't my cup of tea. Hell, I've never even shot coyotes, 'cause I choose to eat what I kill. But unless US laws were broken then leave the guy alone and shut up. Or, if you feel strongly about it, actually use your liberty to get off your butt and go do some work to change the laws (like we need more of them, but knock yourself out!).
This is still the land of freedom. Where you draw your moral and ethical boundaries are almost sure to be different from where I draw mine. If together we decide that some activity is an undue strain on a resource, or so universally reprehensible that it should not be allowed, then we change the laws and move forward as such. But otherwise, the agreement is that you can pursue your happiness, and I can pursue mine, without fear of undue punishment.
But just because you do not agree with trophy hunting, does not mean you have the moral high ground (even if you are pedantic enough to name your boat Pequod and pontificate with pejorative insults and unsubstantiated declarations from the poopdeck, not to single any glaring example out).
This is the same tactic that PETA-types use against Sea World. It is the same tactic that the anti-gunners use. "Our position is ethical and caring! You disagree so you are an evil hater!"
Take a long, hard look in the mirror. What you see looks exactly like Dr Palmer to those in the population who view fishing as unethical. Their boundary is a little different than yours.
I choose to celebrate the beauty and freedom of a country where someone can plan it, pay for it and make it happen if that is their dream. Personally, I'd much rather go catch some maguro!
Killing lions isn't my cup of tea. Hell, I've never even shot coyotes, 'cause I choose to eat what I kill. But unless US laws were broken then leave the guy alone and shut up. Or, if you feel strongly about it, actually use your liberty to get off your butt and go do some work to change the laws (like we need more of them, but knock yourself out!).
This is still the land of freedom. Where you draw your moral and ethical boundaries are almost sure to be different from where I draw mine. If together we decide that some activity is an undue strain on a resource, or so universally reprehensible that it should not be allowed, then we change the laws and move forward as such. But otherwise, the agreement is that you can pursue your happiness, and I can pursue mine, without fear of undue punishment.
But just because you do not agree with trophy hunting, does not mean you have the moral high ground (even if you are pedantic enough to name your boat Pequod and pontificate with pejorative insults and unsubstantiated declarations from the poopdeck, not to single any glaring example out).
This is the same tactic that PETA-types use against Sea World. It is the same tactic that the anti-gunners use. "Our position is ethical and caring! You disagree so you are an evil hater!"
Take a long, hard look in the mirror. What you see looks exactly like Dr Palmer to those in the population who view fishing as unethical. Their boundary is a little different than yours.
I choose to celebrate the beauty and freedom of a country where someone can plan it, pay for it and make it happen if that is their dream. Personally, I'd much rather go catch some maguro!
