I think the idea is that in this circumstance, the consequence and harm of the hunting wasn't bad at all. No harm was really done, yes, animals were killed, but one assumes, they endured minimal suffering.
The issue is just simply what a nob Matt Hughes is.
Here's a guy who's basically incapable of having a meaningful moment in an Africa on a safari, without killing animals, and, incapable of bonding with his son properly without killing animals.
Secondly, his justification reeks of nobbery. 'The bible say it and the law say it, it must be fine'
Yes Matt, because we all know our morality only comes from somewhere outside ourselves and needs to be written down and directed to us.
If Matt was living in the 1800s he would say the same thing about slavery. Nob.
(no I'm not equaling slavery to hunting)