It seems like the comment I responded to was referring to something like an 'incongruity', and saying it was '[situational] irony', but it doesn't really satisfy the definition of situational irony (from wikipedia):
>"Situational irony: The disparity of intention and result; when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect."
In this specific case, the intention of extracting animal products caused the animals to be killed, which is not contrary to the expected effect (unfortunate as it may be).
Okay, lets give context of irony, Elephants are hunted for their amazing mystical power to bring good fortune to humans who posses their tusks.
Now lets imagine the elephants actually provide a long distant benefit to humans, butterfly effect style. Maybe their migration involves knocking over some dormant trees with their tusks, which they're known to do, that would then knock over seeds for new trees. This would aid in the containment of soil and prevent soil erosion.
Instead, consider they're all gone, the trees all die off without seeding, then windstorms etc turn more land into desert.
Ironically those same hunters now have less land to grow food from. Thus less fortune, the action to bring more fortune has resulted in less.
This is a stretch of an example using just 1 animal, but whats more confusing is why it needed to be defined through the purview of defining ironic.
Edit: As mentioned this is 1 example, but there are an uncountable scenarios of 'medicinal' practices that require the 'rarest' animal components to 'work' from. Point is, its all superstition and it contributes far too much.
>"Situational irony: The disparity of intention and result; when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect."
In this specific case, the intention of extracting animal products caused the animals to be killed, which is not contrary to the expected effect (unfortunate as it may be).