On top of that, you have to add in the typical liberal inability to understand simple economics. Hunting brings in money that pays for more livestock and food as well as Park Rangers to control poaching. They can't seem to understand that regulated hunting and illegal poaching are not the same thing and getting rid of hunting actually makes the poaching worse.
I have had the honor of actually
changing somebody's mind on this. Now, they weren't a staunch anti-hunter, but by working through the economics of it, I was able to convince them that such hunting was for the best. Points I hit:
1. Legal hunting generally targets 'excess' males. Generally, this amounts to older non-reproductive males and bachelors. Poachers go after whatever they can catch. Another example was the game wardens auctioning off a permit to kill a rhino that had grown old enough that he couldn't have sex anymore, but was still bothering the females, harassing their offspring, etc... It sold for nearly half a million, if I remember right.
2. Removal of excess males increases reproductive success for the females - take a lion pride. With excess males removed, there will be fewer 'successions' for the King, and remember that the incoming king kills the cubs of the previous. You also have greater food availability with the extra game that the males would have eaten.
3. The income puts *value* on the animals that would otherwise not be there. If they have value, they will be protected. Otherwise, as seen here, they're regarded as nuisance animals and they'll *encourage* the poachers.