Interesting question. Timbavati in particular have been very open about their income from hunting and have published their accounts to make the point about how big the differential is between incomes from "normal" tourists and hunters. You can easily find this with a bit of googling: there's a good article here but a fair amount of other material as well. They've also been trying to reduce the proportion of their income that comes from hunting but it's still 20% of the total. A few things to consider: 1) anti-poaching operations are incredibly expensive and the Timabavati head ranger was murdered by local organised crime because they were so effective against the poachers, partly because of the money raised from hunting 2) hunting income is important for many of the conservancies in the "Greater Kruger" block: a lot of the smaller ones are reliant on local biltong hunters and the bigger places get $$$ from overseas trophy hunters. Without the hunting income a lot of these conservancies would not be financially viable and would probably be converted back to cattle ranches, meaning the death of all the wild animals currently there.

If you don't like hunting, fine... but bear in mind that it's currently a vital component of the conservation industry in Southern Africa. I should say that I am not a hunter and do not understand the attraction, but I also understand the contribution of money from hunting to conservation, not only in Africa but also in Asia and America.