Why must we hunt polar bears?

Aren't there enough animals to hunt in the world without killing polar bears?

Apparently not, since politicians from Canada's Northwest Territory have asked officials from the Interior Department to allow U.S. sportsmen to bring back polar bear hides after their hunts in the Arctic region. The United States bans sport hunting of polar bears. Canada does not, but it restricts the hunting season and limits the number of bears that can be killed. But after the polar bear was given more protection under the Endangered Species Act, U.S. hunters can no longer bring back polar bear hides, which could stop the hunts since it's mostly wealthy American hunters who hunt polar bear for sport.

The argument from Canadian officials is that the recent protection given to polar bears will eliminate hunting the animals for strictly sport, which, they say, will hurt people like guides and outfitters who depend on the hunts for income.

Why should financial concerns always trump everything else? Aren't there enough deer, antelope or other animals to hunt in the world without having to shoot endangered animals? We recognize hunting deer doesn't provide the same thrill as hunting polar bears, but so what? Who can put a price on extinction?

It shouldn't always be about money it should sometimes be about doing the right thing. Otherwise, surely someone would pay big bucks to shoot the world's remaining tigers and mountain gorillas, net as many coelacanths as possible and blast some of those pesky bald eagles from the sky.

Perhaps it's best that no one has ever proven the existence of such mythical creatures as Sasquatch, Yeti, chubacabra or the Loch Ness Monster. Surely if scientific proof was ever found, someone would propose hunting seasons on all of those creatures.