You couldn’t miss the saga and media frenzy over the past two weeks about the Minnesotan hunter who shot a lion named Cecil.

One of the phrases that kept coming up in the media is “trophy hunting.”

Over the years, animal rights and anti-hunting groups have associated this phrase with killing the biggest and healthiest animals, wanton killing of wild game, egotistical behaviour and waste of natural resources.

Of course, anyone familiar with hunting will just shake their head at such wild assumptions.

Personally, I never liked the term “trophy hunting.” I prefer the more appropriate phrase “selective hunting.”

This is not simply an exercise in semantics.

A trophy is a reward for achieving excellence in the field of sport, trade or science.

An athlete receives a trophy medal for being better than any other competitor.

The Nobel Prize is a trophy given to people excelling in science, literature, politics and humanitarian causes, among many other professional fields.

If you were to ask a hundred hunters what constitutes a trophy to them, you would get a hundred different answers.

Some might say that it is the very first animal they have taken, or an animal they have taken in association with a very special experience, such as the last hunt with their father.

For most hunters a trophy is associated with the experience that led to taking the animal, not the kill itself.

The “selective” hunter, on the other hand pursues an animal that is very special to him, and for that he might go many years without taking any animals whatsoever until he happens to come upon that chosen animal.

Not all selective hunters look for the biggest animal. A hunter whose dream hunt is to take a lion in Africa will kill any legal lion, regardless of “trophy status.”

However, there are some selective hunters that look for the biggest animal and there is nothing wrong with that either.

In fact, that type of hunting is conservation at its best.

You see, most animals that have “trophy status” are also old.

They do not partake in active breeding anymore but still will jealously attack any younger male that dares to get close to a female.

One of the reasons why there has been less wildlife before regulated hunting with a conservation aspect was introduced is because the younger males — the ones that do most of the breeding — were prevented from doing that by the older males.

Taking these old animals out of the population creates an opportunity for the younger males to step in and pass their genes on.

Thus our wildlife populations steadily grew in numbers and health.

Coming back to the lion named Cecil.

After all the dust of hype and make-believe has settled and self-serving animal rights groups have filled their bank accounts with money from gullible donors, it is refreshing to see that common sense and wildlife management science prevail.

After scientists like Brent Stapelkamp, the man who spent many years researching Cecil came out in favour of hunting, plus many other scientists voicing their expert opinion on the benefits of regulated hunting, we see a big change.

The Zimbabwe government reversed the hunting ban before it even could be implemented.

Five of the seven airline companies that instituted a ban on transporting trophies from Africa reversed their decision and the notorious animal rights groups like PETA and Born Free, among countless others riding the animal rights parade wagon, have moved on to their next victim that promises to generate enough dollars to pay for the six figure annual salaries of their leaders.

How far we as a society have fallen when a dead lion, which happens to have a name, can generate a worldwide outrage with hourly hype nurtured by media outlets!

Yet in that same two weeks ISIS continues to murder and sexually enslave women.

Also in that same week, dozens of children in Zimbabwe starved to death and six white settlers had their land taken away from them and were hacked into pieces while still alive.

Not much was mentioned in the global news media about these crimes against humanity.

There was certainly no worldwide outcry and dedicated social media pages about that, because a dead lion was more important than the plight and suffering of people.