So we know he paid, we know the animal fits the profile of animals reserves will sell the hunting rights for and we know mongolia does issue hunting permits for this species, so what's the problem?
If this was an above board kill he's done more to help endangered animals than anyone here ever will.
I am not, which is why I asked why people were assuming it was illegal despite the article going out of its way not to actually directly make that claim, and i even couched my position on the potentially good of trophy hunting with the statement ' If this was an above board kill'.
The case for Cecil for example involved the guy paying people to lure the lion off a reserve, i'm asking for similar evidence, or any evidence at all, that the guy did something wrong here.
The problem with your first statement is that you make an assumption, and connect things that are not necessarily correlated, especially with the information we have.
Just because we know he paid and the animal might fit the profile of animal reserves, it does not mean that he had gotten a permit to have hunted the animal. That is based on conjecture, rather than evidence. If you can find further evidence to prove this, like you did with the Don Jr. bit, then that's fine. However, I feel the way you phrased that sentiment, particularly the end when you ask, "what's the problem?", you've already insinuated you believe this is in fact true without providing evidence to support that claim.
And honestly, saying things about a man who has been known for doing the wrong thing in the past, and then making a statement like "he's done more to help endangered animals than anyone here ever will", is sort of a bad faith argument at its core, as supposition than fact.
In regards to this particular person, from what I recall at the time there actually have been numerous other illegal hunts that were detailed out in prior articles of his other hunting activities, so it wasn't just Cecil the Lion, but it was just the most high profile one at the time.
In the end, if you wanted to make a case for legal killing, your approach in doing so just came off as crass, which is why I was not the only one who responded as such, and others as well.
While I still don't agree with you on your perspective, I do understand a bit more clearly what you meant now, so thanks for clearing that up.
www.propublica.org
