According to many websites, everyone – or rather "the internet" – hates Melissa Bachman. In case you haven't heard of Bachman, she's an American TV personality from Minnesota who is an avid hunter. Recently, she came to my country of South Africa and killed a male lion. It wasn't the incident itself that was unusual, but the proud kill photo she posted on Twitter and Facebook that sparked outrage.

She's been called everything from "sorry excuse of a human being" to "evil". There's a "Stop Melissa Bachman" Facebook page and a petition with over 485,000 signers calling for a ban on Bachman herself, not hunting. This is to say nothing of the horrific sexist and misogynist remarks targeting her, reminding us again of the internet's treatment of women.

Whatever one's views of hunting or killing of animals, we should all agree namecalling, threats of violence and death, are no way to respond to a cause one believes in – no matter how passionate the belief, no matter how important the cause.

The word "lynch mob" is perhaps the wrong description of individuals, but as a description of their mindset, it probably isn't. Being swept up in a storm of unified outrage, condemnation or mockery against a single individual can be detrimental to both target and aggressor.

For the target, there might be no space to help clarify, lessen, correct, or even apologise over the roar of reaction; for the aggressors, the target might be the wrong target of outrage, the information could be spotty, non-existent, wrong, and so on.

Consider the detriment in terms of being the wrong target. This is true in Bachman's case, in two ways.

First, as indicated, the legalisation of hunting should be the focus, not Bachman. Banning a single individual, who is not a criminal under the current South African law, won't change the law one so dislikes. There will be other Bachmans. What makes her so special? (The answer is probably to do with a combination of her sex, nationality, platform, and so on, rather than just her actions.)

Second, some of the furore – as predicted – ended up literally targeting the wrong person, in this case a student with the same name.

Hunting is a complicated issue and this is forgotten when targeting a single individual – who may be acting immorally, but was not acting illegally.

When considering the morality of hunting – before even its legality - what must be stressed is that caring for the environment is not incompatible with supporting hunting. (Who would be against the environment, after all?)

For example, a report by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, found in 2008 that complete prohibition would be detrimental, not helpful, to the communities and animals in Central Africa. As James Owen wrote in National Geographic:

A blanket ban on hunting in tropical forests won't protect animals threatened by Africa's escalating bush-meat crisis, [the report says]. What's more, a total crackdown on the trade could prove disastrous for local communities who have few alternative sources of protein and income.

And today, too, experts confirm that supporting legalised hunting and caring for the environment are not mutually exclusive. Professor Melville Snyman, the Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society Director at North-West University, concludes:

Case studies from South Africa have shown that as soon as the hunting of a species is allowed, it leads to the breeding as well as conservation of the particular species. Botswana's policy is definitely going to lead to job losses, since it affects professional hunters and other related professions.

Ivo Vegter, citing Snyman and others, mounts a powerful defence using plenty of data – despite his own dislike of hunting.

Consider, too, that hunters want more animals, not less. It is in a hunter's interest to ensure good management, oppose poaching and black markets that mistreats the animals and environments. Ethical – or therapeutic – hunting, as proposed by people like Gary E Varner is: "hunting motivated by and designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species and/or the integrity of its ecosystem".

The point isn't that all hunters or laws have this mind; they clearly don't. In the United States, for example, hunting licences seem to have increased for the upcoming deer hunting season, which is apparently "huge" for places like Jackson County, Michigan that depend heavily on the nine-day season. Here, one encounters claims of "hunting tradition" and economic benefits, which are insufficient reasons to kill animals. (Anything can be justified by claiming tradition and economic benefits.)

Even the claims of hunters as environmentalists, as noted above, are treated with heavy doses of scepticism.

The most important thing to note is that outrage is not argument. People are proposing perspectives that must be interrogated with facts, data, and rationality – not knee-jerk reactions banning one or two people instead of the act itself, viewing all hunters as environment haters, and so on.

For example, when people say it's "morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations", one must ask what that means: Saying "morally" before "wrong" doesn't tell us anything. Right and wrong are conclusions, not the beginning of a position.

Disgust doesn't negate moral agreement: I am "disgusted" by hunting, but I'm uncertain that it's actually always wrong. It could be right – given certain scenarios, such as it actually benefitting the environment, reducing suffering (since animals aren't forced to die painfully with ethical hunting practises as they might with natural predation or illegal poaching, for example), and so on.

Situations are complicated more than feelings allow. Disliking doesn't mean opposing: it means merely disliking. By always maintaining a sense of uncertainty in moral claims, it can help prevent solidifying into a stance that sees people threatening others, like Melissa Bachman. Preventing moral certainty is as important a goal as preventing the suffering of creatures. This case of outrage is a good example of where so many fail.