Something is happening in Texas, a new form of ecotourism/conservation, where people pay big money to hunt endangered species. For a meager $5,000 you too can mount the Scimitar Horned Oryx (extinct in the wild) on your wall. It seems that only in Texas where the idea of bigger is better would this form of ecotourism/conservation thrive. Ranchers and hunters argue that by killing a few, they in turn are able to save the species. 60 Minutes did a piece on this earlier in 2012 and Laura Logan raised a very important question, asking an adversary of the practice; “If the animals exist only to be hunted would you rather they not exist at all?” I pondered over this for sometime trying to decide which I most agree with. On one hand, I think it is wrong to hunt an endangered species so you can raise funds to protect them in the end. It just seems very counterintuitive. However, I also would not want the animal to not exist, simply because it is being hunted as well. It brings about an interesting Catch-22 and I find myself unable to answer the question Laura Logan pressed. What do you think?