Is Eric Trump a BIG GAME HUNTER? He was referred to as "a guy who kills baby elephants for kicks". Is that true? Is he really that?

Yes, yes you are WAY off base.

First, you're the one that stated that the USA is exploiting those "poor" countries. Perhaps you mean the millions of dollars sent there by USAid is somehow considered exploitation. (And it is, to the US taxpayers.) Or perhaps you mean that Great Britain sends more to those people than does the USA, seeing as how they were the preordinate exploiter. No? Once you made that outrageous statement about the States I merely pointed out that it was Imperial Great Britain that did the worst damage to "the Dark Continent", by far. It's not exclusive to the savagery of Great Britain either (and you don't get a pass on it because it happened over 24-hours ago). There's plenty of culpability to go around Europe which is why I mentioned Belgium, the other really egregious party to all that raping and pillaging.

And you also seem to be confused about "poaching", "trophy" hunting and "sustenance" hunting. So first, some definitions:
"Poaching" is taking game in violation of applicable laws such as outside of the legal season or outside of "bag" or size/age limits or sex restrictions.
"Sustenance" hunting is just that, hunt and kill to eat and live.
"Trophy" hunting should be more considered to be "Recreational" hunting. People hunt for the enjoyment derived from the activity.
They are NOT mutually exclusive either One, two or all three can be occurring at the same time with the same animal. As an example old acquaintances would often hunt whitetail deer, an activity that they enjoy, outside the season because they needed to eat and feed their families. They would try for the biggest animals because that meant more meat on the table. And if it happened to be "antlered" with an impressive rack the taxidermied head might just end up their garage or basement wall sporting the "traditional" baseball cap, sunglasses and Marlboro cigarette. If not that degree of "sophistication" then certainly the antlers would end up there. But the harvesting of food was of paramount importance, the rest a bonus. 

And that's nice that you have a "friend" from Zimbabwe and that your son spent some time there for some reason (did they have one of those $3/day maids to exploit, I mean to clean their domiciles?). One of my kids spent 2-years working in that part of the world for USAid and ended up marrying an African. So the fact that you have an "acquaintance" from there and your son spent some time there doesn't much impress me given that I have regular discussions with people that actually know what's going on there.

But that does bring us to the African elephant. The ones that you see laying rotting with just the ivory removed are the ones that were poached. (It happens in Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana too, as well as the countries where hunting is banned; just not nearly as much because of the hunting fee financed game wardens in those afore mentioned countries.) The poacher takes the most valuable portion of the animal when sold on the black market and then beats feet before they get caught. No time to butcher the carcass and divide the meat. And that illegally obtained ivory is probably going to China, or maybe England.

But when the animal is hunted and taken legally a whole lot of cash flows into the local economy and contrary to what you seem to think the meat and every other part that the hunter doesn't want or can't take is donated to and used by the locals (contrary to popular myth protein is in short supply in that part of the world, at least for the indigenous peoples).  Nothing goes to waste. (And that nullifies your "sentiment" about culling being left to the "professionals"  . . . Let's see . . . local authorities getting paid a pittance to cull animals and waste the carcasses vs. wealthy foreigners contributing substantial funding to the local economy for the privilege of hunting the animal and, if successful, the meat going to feed local folks . . . which option makes the most sense to you? Never mind . . . )

https://gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-elephant-hunting/

Oh, the "Trophy" ivory from a legally taken elephant cannot be legally sold. It even requires a special license to import into the USA, and then only by the hunter that actually took the animal (don't know about English laws). 

So as I say, you don't seem to have much of a handle on what really happens when it comes to legally hunting big and dangerous game animals on "the Dark Continent".

I think your answer is excellent.

Eric (not Donald) Trump shot a baby elephant and posted a picture of himself with it on Twitter.

Then please post the picture or a link to it. 
I have looked and cannot find it. 
I guarantee there is no pictures because it is fake and false news as usual.

Couldn't find baby elephant reference but if you Google "Eric Trump kills baby elephant," lots of articles come up describing him and big brother killing all sorts of African game, including elephants.

I assume you also fact check news sources like FOX, Drudge Report and Breitbart in the interest of having a level playing field. 

I never take just one source as truth. I always look for another and then try to see how the opposite side explains it.

So as I said it is another Fake and False story this one started by Nicole Wallace from MSNBC a supposed Republican. 

Yes, the Trump sons hunt on safari this includes elephant, lions, tigers, etc. But no Trump, (Donald, Jr or Eric) shot a baby elephant. Fake News.....False News.....Fraud News. 

And good for them! (Although I believe that there's a minimum size/age for all big game animals so "babies" aren't legal to hunt.)

Each legal kill of an African game animal literally puts thousands of dollars into wildlife conservation on that continent (a single elephant has a fee of $38,000 with a seasonal limit placed on how many can be taken.) Here's a price list for South Africa. 

https://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/pricelist.html

The "trophy fee" goes for that conservation effort. It allows for the employment of game wardens (who would otherwise probably be poachers to sustain themselves), veterinarians, biological research and maintenance of game reserves, to name but a few of the areas that are supported by those funds.

And if you think that the animals would be better off without being hunted take a look at what happened to the elephant population in the Congo when hunting was banned about 30-years ago and those fees were no longer being collected.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/  fairy stories are always more tasteful to swallow at bed time. 

You seem to have missed the word "poaching" in your referenced WEB link, "poaching" being an ILLEGAL activity. Seems that you're the one comforted by swallowing something of a fairytale at bedtime.

Probably unlikely and I HAVE addressed this issue sufficiently that you should know I have taken into account the difference between poaching and trophy hunting..  Sooo... Irrelevant.. the combined loss of species by both hunting and poaching ... as I did say, if you are at the stage where you need to conserve and protect then it makes no sense to also allow stuffed shirt idiots with small dicks to pay money in what is an explotative way to kill and rape the resources of ANOTHER country... then legal or not it's wrong.. And we DO all know it's only legal because of the explotative measures where these people are so poor that they are easily swayed by money..  I hear tale many AMericans worship money too.. I wonder how much I would have to pay to exploit Americans :P 

Anyway.. we know it's pointless me replying.. you continually subvert facts :P

You say that have taken that into account but the content of your postings say otherwise. Those postings also highlight your total ignorance of animal conservation when you just outright ignore facts.

But let's play your little game for a minute. You want hunting banned so no more revenue stream from that activity. Who then pays for the efforts to preserve those endangered animals? A State that has a population so poor that they can't feed themselves let alone take actions to "preserve" indigenous animal speces? Who deals with keeping the animals from destroying farmland (or do you propose killing the humans to allow the animals to roam freely)?

Let's look at the elephant population in Africa. Hunting is banned in the Congo and the elephant population has been in sharp decline since that ban was instated. In South Africa where hunting is permitted and regulated the pachyderm population is growing. (How do you explain that discrepancy to your way of thinking, by the way?)

And as to the money . . . wasn't it the British when they were draining the wealth from the dark continent that went on hunts where they killed many animals of all species and just let them and rot? Perhaps that's what's influencing your thinking? (US hunters don't engage in that kind of barbarity.)

So go ahead and keep ignoring the facts of the real world. I'm sure that your imaginary world is a much better place, if only it were more than mere fantasy.

This sociopath is just like daddy.

What an outrageous accusation to make. 

This is barbaric to call the USA president and his family such names.

I think it's masculine, and it fulfills some instincts that you try to deny. 

Do you mean instincts to kill living things?

That's a rather small part of what I mean. I mean male and female instincts that go deeper than simply killing. We can't exist without killing some living things. We need both animal and plant sources in our diets, and both are alive. We must kill bacteria, viruses and germs lest they kill us.