Although many disagree with big game hunting all Ernie’s hunts were strictly licensed and above board and were registered as conservation in culling animal numbers
Nothing here really indicates that the guy was a bad person, other than some vague categorizations like "he was rich" or "he was a hunter".
I can't say anything about his deeds or misdeeds as a rich guy. But I feel like there should be some context added about big game hunters - namely, that they are important to conservation efforts.
Sport hunters realized probably 100 years ago that unchecked hunting of their quarry would soon lead to the extinction of such species, and thus, the extinction of their sport. Hence, they were a big part of the early conservation efforts of the early 20th century, and typically continue to be big (and organized) advocates of conservation efforts today - supporting the protection of ecosystems and public lands.
Of course, this isn't to say hunters, as individuals or as a group, are without their flaws. You would likely find more than a few climate skeptics in their ranks. But it seems to me that someone who goes out to interact with nature regularly would be a far more sympathetic ear to being swayed than their cousin Jim Bob who just sits on the couch all day watching Fox News.
In particular, there seems to be an idea that hunters are some sort of bloodthirsty killers. But most hunters will explain that they do a lot to limit animal suffering by lining up precise shots and using bullets or arrows designed to kill as quickly as possible. While most hunting done in developed nations these days is done for sport, the hunters do still eat the meat, and they are quick to point out that this is probably the most ethical way to get meat - from an animal who was able to live a good life in a natural habitat, and which then died instantly. Far better than the cow which lived its whole life in a tiny feed lot up to its knees in shit before it was turned into a hamburger. And if you ask them why they hunt, they will talk about spending time in nature, spending time with friends, and feeling like they are taking part in the circle of life in a way humans have been since we roamed the African savannah.
And on a practical level - almost every natural area in the world needs hunters in order to control animal populations. In most areas, apex predators have been brought to near extinction by a number of factors - mostly the destruction of large contiguous areas of habitat for the purposes of farming. The result is an explosion in the population of prey species, which will then have negative impacts on the environment as a whole by overpopulating and overfeeding. Thus there is a need to regularly cull herds. We could pay land managers to do this themselves, of course. But why do that when there is a population of sport hunters willing to pay to do the job for you?
Which brings us to big game hunting in Africa. Africa, you may have heard, is poor. While conditions are improving, Africa remains one of the biggest hotbeds of world poverty, and it is currently undergoing a massive population boom. And adjacent to these populations of desperately poor people, you have the last strongholds of some of the most incredible species on Earth. I have a friend who regularly travels to Africa to help with a small NGO he is affiliated with. As he tells it, the attitude of the average local is "I think they should kill all the lions. They eat people." They think the land would be better used for more farms or more housing, and see poachers as just doing some honest work. African governments are similarly not very interested in protecting these natural habitats - the more democratic ones are typically mostly focused on getting people food, water, shelter, and healthcare on an extremely meager budget. And the more autocratic ones are concerned with pleasing the multinational corporations exploiting their land and quelling populist uprisings. Both the people and the governments must be given a reason to care about preserving their natural environments. An Economic reason. The cold, hard truth is that if you want to save the elephants, you must show the people who control the land that having elephants will make them more money than not having elephants.
Enter: big game hunters. The preserves, of course, get some funding from NGOs and normal ecotourism safaris. But more money is more better, and big game hunters come with money. African preserves face the same challenges as wildland areas in the rest of the world, as apex predator populations dwindle, prey populations increase to untenable levels. They must be culled somehow, so why not let someone pay you for the opportunity? Meanwhile, the apex predators and megafauna themselves will all die eventually. And what is the fate of an aging lion with an arthritic limp? To slowly starve to death, until he is too weak to fend off the hyenas that will tear the flesh from his bones while he is still alive? Auctioning off a hunting license for a dying lion will both shorten the animal's suffering and result in a big payday for the preserve so they can pay to protect all the other lions from poachers.
The great irony being that whenever we see a news story about big game hunting, the comments inevitably cast the hunter as the villian - when instead, they are an active participant in preserving endangered species and limiting animal suffering. Is this exactly the world we would all like to see? No, not really. But solving problems of shrinking habitats and worldwide poverty will take a while, and protecting endangered species with big game hunters' deep pockets is a pretty good solution right now.
