The argument that legal hunting is some sort of environmental movement is just stupid. If you kill for fun then you're a psychopath, period.
Of course conservation needs money, but not that way.
Paulm: I haven't done my own research on your post as yet, but if as described on my initial proof read, then I would be in favour of controlled killing of certain animals that the rangers/experts say need to be killed, if it raises significant $$$ to further protect the remaining species.
Wether a specific animal is killed for "fun & $$$" by a trophy hunter, or by the park ranger out of necessity - its still dead. I'd favour getting some benefit from its death.