What I was trying to say was the original argument of the stronger eating the weaker ones is part of nature/the ecosystem, therefore, it is natural, thus it can't be easily labelled as unethical, is not a totally sound one.

The argument based on the premise that it is natural to do so. There is nothing natural about dominating another living with a gun that you can shoot at a ridiculous range. It doesn't matter how much money you bring to it, maybe that bear is destined to die of old age if it wasn't for the human shooting him down.

We don't know for sure what's the impact of hunting an old bear or a rhino down (I'm aware that there are some arguments about it being a good thing), but sure that wasn't what nature did for billions of years.

Does the good triumph over the bad aspect when you pay for a kill? Maybe, possibly. Is it ethical? Debatable. Is it part of nature? No.