The fact that it's legal doesn't make it morally right. It's a common fallacy to state legal = morally sound. These idiots are murdering under the veil of licenses and what is legally allowed is exactly what pisses everybody off. If a license to kill existed, would it make it morally just to whack your mother or your family ?
The changes in opinion that you witness is not the result of double standards but a total change of context. These are totally different situations. You cannot expect people to hold a single principle in all scenarios, and then say they are hypocrites. There is no sane people that would just smile and laugh when a bear or a wild animal breaks into your property.
You assumed that all anti-hunting people are against killing of animals. This is once again flawed because anti-hunting people are against the hunting of animals unless it's absolutely necessary for food and self defense against unprovoked hostility. The killing of animal statement is a description of an isolated action, does not have the capacity to hold any argument value without considering the context in which the killing takes place. The context and reasons for why the killing takes place is what people are concerned about, not the actual state of killing. Other than for absolutely necessary reasons and dire contexts, killing of animals in the context of hunting for profit, pleasure, sport is totally uncalled for.
The vulgar reaction comes from the discontent towards individuals and groups killing without an absolutely necessary cause (food and protection). In this case as you mentioned, it's for a TV show, which makes things worse.
However most of us agree that leopard should've finished it's job and it was satisfying to see the manhood squealing like a girl without his gun. Irony is a bitch.
</lawyered>
