I do see your point Nash. As the saying goes, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

This is not just an ordinary man, this is the man who is supposed to be protecting endangered wildlife. He doesn't just have to "obey" the law ... he has to believe in it. And it's pretty hard to say he believes in protecting these endangered cats out of the same mouth he said, "I am just glad it's legal (to kill them) in Idaho."

Like you said, Nash, that is like the head of an anti-gambling function going to Vegas to gamble big. It's not just an ordinary guy doing it, it is a public figure who is supposed to be opposed to this doing it. (Or, as another detractor put it, that is like the leader of an anti-drug department going to Amsterdam and posting photos of himself snorting coke or smoking a joint.) These are leaders of something acting in stark contrast to that which they are supposed to be Championing against.

In short, this is called a conflict of interest or being duplicitous. Big difference here IMO.

Jack