I've laid out the case why Trophy Hunting deserves some scorn.
Hunting for great imo but the problem with Trophy Hunting is the 'Trophy' part.
Mankind with its technology aided hunts and high tech weaponry have taken any and all sport out of it.
Drones used to do the tracking, and improvement in guns make it simply a 'kill' and not a 'hunt' and calling it hunting for those type of trophy hunts is becoming perverse. Seriously just catch the animals in cages and let a 'Trophy Hunter' walk up and shoot it instead of playing the game that they big bad skilled hunters.
But the bigger problem is how bad mankind is for healthy animal populations.
Trophy hunters like to claim they are good for conservation when in fact they make entire species weaker and more sickly and regress evolution wise.
Man is the only alpha hunter that targets the healthiest in any herd or pack and picks them off instead of targeting the weakest. That flips evolution on its head where the best adaption to survive is being the weaker more sickly looking one and that is exactly what we see happening in areas where Trophy hunters are common.
I have friends who hunt and they lament the lack of top quality, point scoring Bucks now compared to a few decades ago. They seem oblivious to their role in that.
You kind of create a Strawman about the "ideal" weak-man trophy hunt.
- Drones (You could add feeders to lure in animals sometimes) et al.
If you do not like that, fine, I do not either, but going out in the bush and tracking the animals is not a simple task by any means, and I get the feeling you have never done so, nor have most of the writers outright condemning the actions. If one wants to cut out drones, or certainly something like feeders, absolutely, but painting all hunters-we-don't-like in those terms is not accurate.
As well the "guns and ammo," have not advanced into super futuristic weapons. The smokeless powder bullet technology and many of the cartridges used by Hemingway are largely in place today. The ones that are not, were fitted for different animals. It is simply not true.
Poachers might bring down an elephant with a volley of AK47 fire (a very old rifle, btw,) but legal hunters are not going that route.
Further, if they were using laser cannons? Your argument is, "I don't like the feeling!" it gives you, when zapping an animal dead is probably better than a slow, arduous death in the wilds.
Additionally you make a kind of "Appeal to Evolution," when Evolution is nothing like a moral system, beyond awful Eugenic and post-Humanist fascist thought experiments.
Luckily, as Darwinian naturalism is a harsh god, what with dying of parasites, disemboweling by rival predators, broken jawbones starving us, or an number of diseases wasting us to nothing.
"I don't like the culture of big game hunting!" as an argument, is not really more humane than a bullet vs. dying of infection eating away the body, "Snows of Kilimanjaro" style.
