Well, the problem with that stance, Camjojohn (and indeed Eddie1 earlier) is that it ties together things that are not related. One can be in favour or opposed to hunting for fun completely independently to whether one is pro or anti halal methods of killing for food. The only interpretation I can make of the all the opinions about what some horrible unethical hunter has or has not done, are devoid of any moral justification phrase is that you do not think people can object to killing Cecil for fun unless they first object to halal for food, and I see no reason that should be so. Why not, for example, might some people get worked up about Cecil first and only then begin to think about halal?