That's the bit she looked at in her documentary. The money from the trophy hunting allows an entire eco system to exist. The meat from the kill was also eaten.
I do understand the arguments for trophy hunting but I find most of them rather simplistic.
Bear in mind, my family has neem involved in conservation for many years. My bother in law's brother runs a conservation area in Kenya. Their father set up the Mwalunganje Elephant Sanctuary in the Shimba hills. This was the first community owned conservation area in Kenya.
This leads on to the trophy hunting argument.
Trophy hunting can only be viewed as temporary. Taking out apex predators in their prime makes little genetic or ecological sense. Wildlife tourism in areas of trophy hunting is generally on the low side. This is because of two obvious reasons - people don't like it and trophy hunting is carried out in the absence of proper conservation work. Places where wildlife tourism exists, yield much more and benefit local communities and the environment to a much greater extent. Trophy hunting in isolation cannot yield the level of monies that will sustain 'whole ecosystems'.
In SA, lions are farmed, released and shot. There may be odd examples where there is wider evidence that the trophy hunting does maintain (at best) habitat but it's not a long term solution,
It's an area that needs much more scrutiny and evidence based outcomes based on studies.
Zakouma National Park in Chad is a wonderful example of tourism benefitting wildlife. Chad had civil war and elephants were being poached to such an extent that they looked like being wiped out in Chad. Now, it's one of the best places in the world for Elephant watching. The government recognised that the tourism benefitted the economy (and also the environment to which the elephant rely on) much more than poaching.
IMHO, the arguments for Trophy hunting is a bit of a one dimensional argument., often failing to take in a multitude of wider complexities.