Trophy Hunting Good?!

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right.  The question is whether it comes down to the greater good as virtue, or abstinence from evil as virtue.

Just not for me, at least not in this.  

Man vs. beast, killing that beast is nasty business-- it will suffer, and its life will end, and I see both those as negatives.

Some ways moreso than others..yeah.  It will suffer and it's life will end regardless.  Moreso if it's mangled by a deep moldboard plow, eaten alive by any number of things, or hit with a bow and bled out running.  Not so much from a well placed shot.   

But given a knowledge of the bigger picture. . . you can count all the animals who don't yet exist but will, and will definitely suffer (like livestock), you can count the lives of one species against those of another, and so on.

Livestock needn't suffer.  We're in a better position to reduce that suffering than we are in the case of wild animals.   I sometimes wonder, btw, at people who treat the hunting of a deer with more thorough ethical consideration than the production of their own livestock.  People with 40 acres managed for deer....and some tiny portion of the rest a feedlot.

---

I think necessary clearly modifies the morality of things, though of course not uniformly.   If only things were that simple.
That doesn't mean it does not modify it at all , as you seem to be saying with the comment "Well, if there's any way that it could be necessary and still immoral, than comments as to the necessity of hunting..or lack thereof, would not modify it's moral status."

If a necessary evil is still evil it's moral status hasn't been modified.  It's just an indication that we have compelling reasons to do the bad thing.  If it weren't evil..it wouldn't be a necessary evil..just necessary.

You gave an example without any specifics, only stating it would be necessary to kill off the last PP Rhino or whatever.  Necessary how or for whom and why?  It matters. Necessary for another species to exist?

See above.

If you think wild animals are not necessary (to human life as well as other life), I guess you have no idea how things work.  
Your argument about providing economy and industry sounds suspiciously like what we hear applied to the dying coal and steel industries.  They can be replaced.

We managed without elk in kentucky for 150 years, they don't seem to have been necessary.  As to replacing ill-thought out industry, ofc we can, when we can..and I think we should when we can.  

You simply cannot say, well, if there exists any situation in which something is both necessary and immoral, then that applies to all other situations.

It shows that it's not a rule, and in so doing shows that a lack of necessity wouldn't, in and of itself, make some thing x immoral.  

Discussing the necessity of Trophy hunting vs the necessity of factory farming animals, specifically, we even seem to agree that it's possible Trophy hunting is actually MORE moral than factory farming.

-even though factory farming is a necessity in a sense that trophy hunting isn't.  

You talk in such circles bringing up such unrealistic examples, it's hard to have a meaningful conversation.

If you say so.