It's easy to show disgust for the obvious bad guy.  The lines are clear and there's little risk that you'll receive flack for voicing your opinion (or voting with your wallet).  The Parsons story is one of these situations.  Killing a free, intelligent and potentially endangered elephant for sport?  Yeah, pretty easy to call that.  What's harder to take a stand against are the gray areas.  Is killing a bred-to-eat cow or pig is okay?  Seems to me that there is some sort of spectrum for these things and killing that elephant is worse than killing a farmed cow.  But the cow still ends up dead.  The reaction from some may be, "People need to eat and it's okay to farm livestock if they are raised/slaughtered in a humane fashion."  That's seems like reasonable logic to me.  However, some percentage of the livestock sold in America isn't raised/slaughtered in a humane fashion.  I'll let others argue over what that actual percentage might be.  The point is that while there are large livestock companies to villainize there is no Bob Parsons-type individual to be singled out in that scenario.  This makes it harder to measure who, when and were the line is being crossed.  In addition, buying meat with more guarantees comes at a price point that many can't stomach.  Nevertheless, the numbers are staggering.

An estimated 95,000 cows were killed in the US today.  According to this article there are over 150 million cattle, bison, sheep, hogs, and goats killed in the US each year.  Almost 9 billion chickens, turkeys, and ducks.  I still eat fish, so I can't point fingers.  I just wish more people would get worked up over the systemic antagonist the way we do with the obvious bad guy.