Big Game Hunter Shot Dead as He Takes Aim at Lion

“A Croatian trophy hunter who, according to friends, had ‘hunted everything that could be hunted in Europe’ has been shot dead while taking part in a South African hunting expedition,” independent.co.uk reports. “Trophy hunter Jelinic had already shot one lion dead and had another in his sights when he was shot at a remote lodge near Setlagole.” Someone had Jelinic in his sights . . .

South African police have opened a culpable homicide (manslaughter) investigation, and are also investigating charges of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

I can almost hear the anti-hunt crowd gloating. Actually, I can read their gloats in the comments section:

Lion hunter death commentsThe Independent article highlights the fact that the dead hunter was hunting captive-bred lions, and “according to World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the number of African lions in the wild has dropped by 40 per cent in the last 30 years because of habitat loss and conflict with people.”

Those two facts are not related. Nor is this legal hunter’s death anything to celebrate, regardless of what you think about “canned hunting.” [ED: related Safari Club story to follow.]

comments

  1. avatar anonymoose says:

    I bet it was his wife.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Or his mistress. Hell hath no fury.

    2. avatar derfel cadarn says:

      Was his alias Francis Macomber ?

  2. avatar jwm says:

    There is something wrong, at a very deep and disturbing level, with people that celebrate the death of another human being engaged in a legal activity.

    The people cheering the death of this man would have, in another time and place, cheered at the death of gladiators or the victims of human sacrifice.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Or cheered the death of those “legally” sacrificing others.

      Whether something is legal or not has little to do with whether something is right.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Hannibal. First. I think these kind of canned hunts suck.

        But how are they different from the cow that is raised for food? It’s taken to a slaughter house and killed and butchered. Then you go to the market and buy the meat.

        It’s a business transaction between the farmer, the slaughterhouse, the grocery store and the end consumer.

        Would it be wrong for the end consumer to go to the slaughterhouse and pay his fees and kill the cow himself?

        Do we celebrate the deaths of anyone in the chain of consumption for the cow?

        1. avatar Steve Day says:

          I’ve never heard of a trophy hunter keeping lion steaks in his freezer.

          I believe we should only kill what we plan to eat. Anything else is just killing for the sake of a sick bloodlust.

        2. avatar MDC says:

          JWM, you need help. You’re borderline psyco and your comparative is complete nonsense. You define daft. I’ll go on if I have to. Dolt.

        3. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Agree

        4. avatar jwm says:

          mdc. Insults all you got?

          Must be a hillary girl. Are you also a vegan?

        5. avatar Arc says:

          Jwm, why it is a habit with you to accuse anyone who doesn’t sing your tune or support your view points as being a ultra leftwing neo nazi hillary fascist marxist animal rights tree hugger?

          Just an observation, I’m sensing insecurity.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          ARC. mdc is not disagreeing. She’s launching a personal attack.

          If you read her comment and conclude that my reply is based in insecurity, maybe I’m not the one with the ‘issues’.

        7. avatar Anonymous says:

          I believe we should only kill what we plan to eat.

          You can believe whatever you want. But when you think people should die (if that is what you believe) for not eating an animal that you think they should eat or not kill, then you have a tolerance problem of other people. If you have a tolerance problem of other people, then you have a freedom problem with society.

        8. avatar Anonymous says:

          JWM,

          I agree. Normally I don’t agree with you. But in this, we agree.

        9. avatar Anonymous says:

          JWM, you need help. You’re borderline psyco and your comparative is complete nonsense. You define daft. I’ll go on if I have to. Dolt.

          Zero substance to your statement. Not even a single argument. Yet you shamelessly (or obliviously) call him daft/dolt. Hilarious.

        10. avatar anonymous says:

          @ARC

          Jwm, why it is a habit with you to accuse anyone who doesn’t sing your tune or support your view points as being a ultra leftwing neo nazi hillary fascist marxist animal rights tree hugger?

          Just an observation, I’m sensing insecurity.

          I’m sensing JWM is meeting insults with insults, and that’s about it. Logical arguments would have been better, but people went in the wrong direction.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “There is something wrong, at a very deep and disturbing level, with people that celebrate the death of another human being engaged in a legal activity.”

      Leftists out to destroy my country, I’m fine with celebrating their demise.

      Tell me you won’t be happy if the ‘Notorious RBG’ Ruth Ginsburg drops dead in the next 2-3 years, JWM…

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I will not mourn her. I will be happy for the chance to replace her with a better justice.

        Is that celebrating?

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          As far as I’m concerned taking the high road won’t stop this BS any more. Reaching across the aisle is a one way street. I will hoist a beer in honor of her passing and will do it for others too.

      2. avatar Gutshot says:

        I tend to celebrate when any swine liberal drops dead. One less turd breathing our good air.

    3. avatar Ed says:

      I’m as pro-gun as anyone here. That being said anyone who hunts anything just for sport is a real asshole, period. If you’re gonna eat it cool, if its a threat or a danger to livestock or people fine…but to just kill something because its there and you can is as right as me walking up to you and punching you in the face because you were there and I can. Little dicked peckerheads hunt for sport.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        “but to just kill something because its there and you can is as right as me walking up to you and punching you in the face because you were there and I can.”

        Unsound analogy, for a host of reasons. The main one being that the hunt was legal, whereas your statement of childish bravado is definitely not.

        Hangout with thugs victimizing innocents with ‘the knock out game’, or is that still aspirational?

        1. avatar Gralnok says:

          Actually, he has a point.
          Going after any animal that was bred in captivity for the sole purpose of sport or trophy taking, is wrong. The analogy may be a little off, but the point is made. As for the hunter, he will not be missed. Seriously, who the hell hunts animals for sport and not for meat? Unless there is some cookbook somewhere that advocates eating lion meat. Personally, I can live without it.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          “Actually, he has a point.”

          That his ‘feelz’ are what matters, not rules. Got it. Are you guys in ANTIFA together?

          “Going after any animal that was bred in captivity for the sole purpose of sport or trophy taking, is wrong.”

          Do tell, oh arbiter of all right and wrong, what is the part that gets you squeamish? If it was free range lion it would be OK, or is it that it’s death is for a ‘trophy’ (not merely shrimp tacos, salmon for your sushi. or burger for your grill) the part that grinds your gears?

          “The analogy may be a little off, but the point is made. As for the hunter, he will not be missed. Seriously, who the hell hunts animals for sport and not for meat? Unless there is some cookbook somewhere that advocates eating lion meat. Personally, I can live without it.”

          The point is made? Yup, that you both live to virtue signal, and are insufferable twats who judge others, simply because you don’t agree with someone else’s (legal) hobbies.

          Personally, I also don’t see the point of trophy hunting – there’s no heart-of-darkness challenge to it in my mind. But the difference is that I understand that I don’t get to make other people see things my way.

        3. avatar Gralnok says:

          First off, I don’t go about in all black and beat the shit out of people for expressing opinions contrary to my own. Secondly, yes. The part that it isn’t being used for meat, does irritate me. The fact that it’s life was taken for no other reason than ‘just fer lulz’ as you would put it, does greatly offend me. Third, you seem pretty quick to judge me, because I don’t agree with someone else. Pot calling the kettle black, much? Finally, just because I have respect for animal life, and life in general, doesn’t mean I respect all life. You, for example, are a prime example of human trash. Trash that needs to be taken out.

        4. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          A couple things…”Its bad to celebrate the killing of another human” why in the world not? there are lots of terrible people in the world that deserve a whole lot of killing. I doubt many American’s cried tears over Bin Laden, Hitler, myriad serial killers.

          Canned hunts aren’t sport, in any way. Its shooting paper targets, but by rich assholes.

          At least the murderer hunted an armed man, not his fault the guy wasn’t smart enough to know he was the game animal that day. I’m not really serious, kinda, but sometimes an asshole runs across a bigger asshole, so we might get 2 less assholes out of this.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          Reading Comprehension: 0
          Ability To Identify Salient Point: 0
          Ability To Argue Salient Point: 0

          The only hope I have is that someday you’ll understand that your disagreement with someone else’s (legal) actions/viewpoint doesn’t mean you get to wish them dead. Or celebrate it.

        6. avatar Gralnok says:

          To 16v. I don’t know, I certainly wish you were dead. Or dying a slow death. 😃

        7. avatar Gralnok says:

          Oh, and I forgot to add, yes I’d celebrate your slow and painful demise. Please note, however, that while I disagree with peoples opinions, I respect them. However, if one wants to make things personal, I can do that too. I don’t wish you dead because of your differing opinions, I wish you dead because you, as a person, are a troll, an asshole, and a snarky little shit.

        8. avatar Kenneth says:

          “just because I have respect for animal life, and life in general, ” -Gralnok
          AND:
          “You, for example, are a prime example of human trash. Trash that needs to be taken out.”
          “I certainly wish you were dead. Or dying a slow death.”
          “yes I’d celebrate your slow and painful demise. ”
          Let me fix your mistake:
          because Gralnok has respect ONLY for animal life, and all human life must die, assuming that he can get out of his parent’s basement long enough to make that happen. Fat chance of that.
          THERE, now its correct.
          🙂

        9. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Kenneth.
          Don’t be a smartass and don’t join fights you know nothing about.

        10. avatar anonymous says:

          @Gralnok

          Going after any animal that was bred in captivity for the sole purpose of sport or trophy taking, is wrong.

          Why is it wrong? Prove to me that it is wrong. He pays a large sum of money for his hunt of a domesticated animal that doesn’t impact the wildlife. Real people and the community benefit from his hunt. What is wrong with that? Explain now.

          The analogy may be a little off, but the point is made.

          The analogy was awful and pointless. See my other post addressing that.

          As for the hunter, he will not be missed.

          Your statement here is just absolutely asinine. Of course he will be missed. He will be missed by his friends and family just like anyone else. Ridiculous statement. His life has value, just because he hunts and you don’t like it, doesn’t mean his life doesn’t have value, and just because of your petty resentment for it, doesn’t mean he will not be missed.

          Seriously, who the hell hunts animals for sport and not for meat?

          How about most dove hunters???? Man’s hunting for sport goes back since man began hunting. Furthermore, you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to be a totalitarian of others.

          Unless there is some cookbook somewhere that advocates eating lion meat. Personally, I can live without it.

          And you are welcome to. However, I don’t force you to do what I want you to do, or force how to live your life, and what your opinions should be, and I don’t get to. And that goes likewise for you.

        11. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Anonymous.
          You want me to explain why hunting an animal raised in captivity with no survival skills is wrong? You obviously have no morals. Now, am I claiming to be the high and mighty of morals? Hell no. I’m messed up in the head as well. The difference is, I don’t go about killing needlessly.
          Oh, and don’t go about saying that it’s no different than killing livestock at a slaughterhouse. It is different. Unless, of course, you plan on eating the meat. However, as another comment read, I seriously doubt that these hunters keep freezers stocked with lion meat. Also, don’t give me that crap about it benefiting the community, because it doesn’t. You could spend the same amount of money doing almost anything else and it would have the same impact.

          As for the analogy, eh, I give that one to you. It’s weak and the point is apparently not clear enough.

          For the remark that he wouldn’t be missed? No. He would not. One less disgusting waste of a human that gets his jollies off killing rare and exotic animals. I doubt even his family would miss him. They’d probably sell his guns off to the highest bidder and be done with him. Also, trophies? Right, like someone is going to pay for a stuffed animal with lots of dust, done up to look ferocious when it was probably just sniffing the ground when it got shot. Other than a museum, good luck finding a buyer.

          Dove hunters eat the meat they shoot. Unless they are also human garbage that just shoots things for no reason.

          But, like you correctly pointed out, these are all my opinions. I can’t do anything about it, other than bitch about it online in a comments section. I’m not in power, and sometimes I think that’s a good thing. Most times I see stupid comments and let it roll off my back, but this all began with 16v being a little prick. I’ve written and explained myself several times, but to no avail. Now, you’ve come along. You’ve chosen to be irritating and have successfully gotten under my skin along with 16v. I’d say more, but as of this writing, I’m tired, I’m pissed off, and I’ve got a long day tomorrow. But feel free to continue writing. I’ll be sure to read it eventually.

          For now, goodnight and may God have mercy on your soul, if you even have one.

        12. avatar anonymous says:

          @Gralnok

          You want me to explain why hunting an animal raised in captivity with no survival skills is wrong? You obviously have no morals.

          You didn’t answer the question. Why is it wrong? Show me it is wrong.

          The difference is, I don’t go about killing needlessly.

          Sure you do. You don’t have to eat meat. You can eat fruit, vegetables, nuts, and legumes. You eat meat because you want to. You eat meat because it tastes good, to you. Now, this hunter may not have wanted to eat this lion meat. But he wanted his photo with its dead carcass. He also may have wanted its paw and claws. Or he may want to have it taxidermied and put in his log cabin back in Croatia. And i'm sure that idea tastes good to him. Just like your idea of eating animal flesh tastes good to you.

          Oh, and don’t go about saying that it’s no different than killing livestock at a slaughterhouse. It is different. Unless, of course, you plan on eating the meat.

          Like I said above, he probably wasn’t looking to consume it for the purposes of meat. But he was looking to consume it. No doubt about that. He was consuming the experience, he was consuming the photograph, and he likely would have consumed it for it’s carcass for decor in his home. Hunting and consumption are different to different people. And his method of consumption is different from yours, but it is consumption nonetheless. The lion is consumed in both scenarios.

          Also, don’t give me that crap about it benefiting the community, because it doesn’t. You could spend the same amount of money doing almost anything else and it would have the same impact.

          Sure it does. Captive lion breeder sells hunt to random guy from Croatia. Captive lion breeder gets money, therefore captive lion breeder doesn’t have to go poach wild lion and send carcass to black market. A legalized market allows for this.

          For the remark that he wouldn’t be missed? No. He would not.

          His friends and family would miss him. Just like anybody else. Don’t try to label and mischaracterize him to portray him and something sub-human and dehumanized so you can paint him as some kind of supreme villain. He is a real person, with friends and family just like everybody else.

          One less disgusting waste of a human that gets his jollies off killing rare and exotic animals. I doubt even his family would miss him. They’d probably sell his guns off to the highest bidder and be done with him.

          Speculation.

          Also, trophies? Right, like someone is going to pay for a stuffed animal with lots of dust, done up to look ferocious when it was probably just sniffing the ground when it got shot. Other than a museum, good luck finding a buyer.

          Well…yeah. A taxidermied lion is very costly. And yeah, if he could afford to travel down there and pay the exorbitant costs, then yeah, he would probably want something from the lion brought back (it’s carcass).

          But, like you correctly pointed out, these are all my opinions. I can’t do anything about it, other than bitch about it online in a comments section. I’m not in power, and sometimes I think that’s a good thing. Most times I see stupid comments and let it roll off my back, but this all began with 16v being a little prick. I’ve written and explained myself several times, but to no avail. Now, you’ve come along. You’ve chosen to be irritating and have successfully gotten under my skin along with 16v. I’d say more, but as of this writing, I’m tired, I’m pissed off, and I’ve got a long day tomorrow. But feel free to continue writing. I’ll be sure to read it eventually.

          For now, goodnight and may God have mercy on your soul, if you even have one.

          God gave us animals for our consumption and benefit. They are purely for our enjoyment. At any moment, we as a people could snap our fingers, make the call, and an entire species could be forever wiped away from existence. But we aren’t going to do that. Because we enjoy their existence. We want our progeny to enjoy their existence. Further, just because I condone a method of hunting that you don’t agree with, doesn’t mean I don’t have a soul. It just means I condone a method of hunting that you don’t agree with. There is a close connection between tolerance and freedom, and rights and responsibilities. To allow yourself freedom, your fellow countrymen must tolerate actions you perform that they don’t agree with. For your countrymen to be allowed freedom, you must tolerate actions they perform that you don’t agree with. And you must weigh your perception of morality against the freedom of others and the freedom, you yourself, enjoy. Because both morality and freedom are great to have. But they do interfere with each other, so choose wisely.

        13. avatar Kenneth says:

          “Further, to condone a free culture that supports freedom, requires that you embrace and tolerate ideas that you do not approve of. And in turn, those people must embrace and tolerate ideas that you do not approve of.”
          And this is something that the snowflakes can never do. They can’t even think about the idea of tolerating others. The whole concept doesn’t even fit in their head. They only have room for two ideas: they are right and anyone who disagrees needs to die. This entire exchange shows that. I could cut and paste Grognak quotes to show that, but just any old comment of his at random screams intolerance.

        14. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Anonymous.
          You want me to show you why it’s wrong to kill things needlessly. You either didn’t have a father figure in your early life, or he did a shit job of teaching you right from wrong. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. If you killed a dog or cat, you should be feeling a twinge of guilt inside. That twinge and the guilt associated with it, means your sense of right and wrong is working. When you help someone, or something, you feel good about yourself. Again, that means your sense of right and wrong is in working order. I’d say more, but I can’t go into specifics. Not because they don’t exist, but because I’m not a psychologist and don’t have enough resources or experience to adequately put into words the innate differences between right and wrong.

          Additionally, no. Consuming something means to eat it or use it. Taking a selfie with a dead animal is not using it. Taking it and stuffing it to make a trophy that will just gather dust is not using it. What would be using it? Using the pelt for something else. Exactly what else, I don’t know. I admit, I’ve never been in the possession of the skin of an exotic creature, so I wouldn’t know what to do with it. Was he going to use it for something else, we’ll never know, but it’s highly likely he was just going to, as you said, take it back to Croatia and put it in a hunting lodge to gather dust. Prove me wrong, and I’ll shut my mouth on this part of the argument.

          As for it benefitting the community? Pff. Person goes to a junkyard to buy a car to restore. Junkyard dealer sells him the car so he doesn’t have to either crush it, part it out then crush it, or destroy it in a derby before eventually crushing it. He gets more money for the heap as a whole classic car. The buyer gets to add value to the car by making it run and restoring it to it’s former glory. Want something more close to home? How about we substitute the car and junkyard with a beat up gun and a gun show, or any gun store, really. The buyer wants to restore the gun, or sees value in it. The seller sees less value, since he’s offering it for sale. Money is exchanged, everyone wins. The new owner can now either use it for parts, restore it completely, or just get it working properly.

          For the speculation that this piece of trash wouldn’t be missed? Well, you’re right. It is speculation on my part. However, I have serious issues with people who just hunt for the thrill of killing something. Did he get his rocks off hunting rare and exotic creatures? Well that part is obvious. He hunted lion. Who the hell hunts a lion just for the thrill? Most times it’s done to protect a village, protect livestock, (which I also think is wrong, but that’s my opinion) or in self defense or defense of another. Again, prove me wrong, and I’ll shut up.

          As for your statement that God created creatures purely for our enjoyment, no he didn’t. He created them for HIS enjoyment. Remember, we are animals too. We use tools, we are advanced, but as far as I’m aware of, we aren’t super beings with immortality and invincible bodies. Keep in mind, we evolved. However, this is going off topic and I’m sure lots of people would disagree, but that brings me to my final point.

          Tolerance and Freedom go hand in hand. However, there are limits. So far, I’ve not reached those limits. I’m well within my rights to disagree with you, well within my rights to not tolerate your ideas, so long as I don’t act on my own feelings. Were we sitting at a table, having this discussion, I’m within my rights to not agree and to argue, but I’d be overstepping my rights if I were to beat you over the head with a stick or in some way assault you for your differing opinions, ala ANTIFA. Shouting you down or preventing you from speaking, ala BLM, that’s also wrong. You seem to not realize that simply wishing ill will upon someone, does not mean actively pursuing it. All that said, however, there are what are called ‘Fighting’ Words’. I could go into that topic, but that’s another can of worms I’d rather not open up. In short, it’s one of the exceptions to the above rules. Nature and life have rules, and with all rules, there are exceptions.

          To Kenneth
          Any comment of mine screams intolerance? Excuse me, but as I stated to Anonymous, there’s a difference between tolerating, and bending your ass over and taking someone else’s ideas up the rear. I don’t have to tolerate another’s ideas, I just have to accept that they are free to think whatever they want to think. For example, I personally think that Anonymous is an animal abuser and finds no right and wrong, but only whether you legally can or cannot do something. I also think that you are a sycophant with no integrity. It doesn’t mean I’m correct. I don’t have to be correct. What I cannot do, is take action against someone else, just because of their opinions. Now, like I stated above, there are exceptions to this rule, but I’d rather not go into them, because that’s a whole other mess. To summarize, Kenneth, I’d very much appreciate if you left the argument and let the adults talk.
          Also, Grognak? How about you go back to playing Fallout 4.

        15. avatar Scoutino says:

          Gralnok: Animal life gooood! Human life baaaad!

          How is eating what you kill making it better than other reasons for killing and uses of what you kill?
          Rats are not killed to be eaten. (But they are not cute like lions!)
          Fur animals are not killed to be eaten. (I know, fur is murder. Because often they are cute and furry).
          Insects are killed by millions using chemical weapons, not to be eaten.

          Meat is just one, but certainly not the only one, or even the best reason to kill an animal. Besides, someone will eat the carcass. If not local villagers then hyenas, jackals, vultures and ants. Nothing is ever wasted in nature.

          You don’t like killing animals for trophy? Then don’t do it. Those who do are the ones paying the price for making these animals profitable and worth keeping alive. Lion that can’t be sold to hunter has as much value as a bull that can’t be sold to slaughterhouse. Zero. Except the lion will not eat grass and is great nuisance to have around.
          Stop money supply of legal hunting (for any reason whatsoever) and watch the animals die out.

          Maybe the lion in question even had some slight personality flaws?!

        16. avatar Kenneth says:

          “What I cannot do, is take action against someone else, just because of their opinions. Now, like I stated above, there are exceptions to this rule”
          What might those exceptions be? Because Gralnok feels like it? Because he has a whim? Because he knows insulting words? Just for the record, we on the other side of this also have feelings and whims and words. Why are yours any more important than ours?
          Looking for logical REASONS here, and not your typical response of; “because you’re stupid and heartless”.

        17. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Scoutino
          Go back onto your Anonymous alt, there’s no reason to pretend that more people are joining this argument. After all, it’s on an old article. Everybody else has moved on. Hell, I’d move on, but if you’re still throwing down the gauntlet, I’ll still pick it up.

          What I should have said is that humans were meant to be caretakers. We are supposed to manage species. Obviously, our record on that is spotty. Destroying a colony of ants because they are invading your house, or killing off rats and mice because they are destroying your food is within the realm of caretaking. It’s called population control for the good of the species. Overpopulation leads to disease and suffering.

          You think that legal hunting actually preserves the species? What utter bullshit. Restoring the natural order of predator and prey, that would preserve the species. Shooting a captive bred lion achieves nothing. Same with a captive bred bear, zebra, etc. There are instances, however, where a species must be removed from the environment because of overzealous poachers and because, for whatever reason, everybody in asia seems to think that the more rare the goods, the bigger an erection it will give them if they snort it. Careful management must be performed to protect the species, and promote healthy breeding to restore the population so that they can then be released back into the wild.

          But I digress. Clearly you and 16v are lost causes, so go and die in a fire. It will help prepare you for your eventual destination.

        18. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Kenneth.
          Ah, my apologies. I was busy writing my reply when you posted yours. Well, the statement that you’re stupid and heartless is true, but if you want the exceptions, fine. I’ll list them.

          1: Extreme taunting and calls to fight. Challenges to fight.
          2: Racial Epithets. This is a sketchy one, because I’d list them exactly, but I’d rather not be banned from posting.
          3: Dangerous or inflammatory ideology. This is a very specific exception, but again, I’ll refrain from going into specifics because I’d rather keep my ability to post.

          There are others, but I can’t think of them at the moment. You wanted to open Pandora’s Box, here it is. Open it at your own risk.

        19. avatar Kenneth says:

          “Extreme taunting” –and WHO gets to define what is “extreme” and what is not? I’m guessing you think Gralnok defines on a case by case basis.
          “Racial Epithets” –define “epithet”. Since it only means a name, what you are saying here is that anyone who refers to a race by any name at all, is one of the exceptions that you believe makes it fine for you to attack that one, either verbally or physically.
          “Dangerous or inflammatory ideology” –again, who gets to define what is “dangerous” or “inflammatory”? EVERYTHING spoken is inflammatory to SOMEONE, somewhere….
          This is the problem with your opinions, based upon nothing but your whims of the moment, and your complete lack of caring whether they are even applicable. Or even correct.
          “I also think that you are a sycophant with no integrity. It doesn’t mean I’m correct. I don’t have to be correct.”
          No one’s opinions have to be correct, and most people’s are not, most of the time. But an adult would at least CARE if his opinions are ignorant and foolish, at least enough to think about them when questions are asked, as opposed to name calling and death wishes. Only a spoiled child stamps his foot and says; “I pitch or I don’t play! Give me what I want or I will complain forever(and ruin the game for everyone)!”
          Your use of the word “sycophant” above is a case in point. The word means: a servile, self-seeking flatterer, and is synonymous with such insults as brown-noser or bootlicker. SO… just who am I allegedly flattering and sucking up to on this page? YOU? You think I’m FLATTERING you? Quite certainly NOT. This is the fool you look when you throw around insulting words you heard somewhere, at random, with no idea of their meaning.
          Now, I understand that that is quite a load of truth to digest all in one sitting. Growing up is a long and painful process, and it will not be done here, by you, in a matter of days. But I mean you no ill will. SO… would it be at all possible for you to grow up enough to discuss a single question, rationally, without insults and ridicule, at least for a short while? Here it is:
          Why is it wrong[sport hunting]? Prove to me that it is wrong. He pays a large sum of money for his hunt of a domesticated animal that doesn’t impact the wildlife. Real people and the community benefit from his hunt. What is wrong with that? Explain how. Please explain, w/o insults(or ridicule: if you don’t know you never will..etc), WHY you believe that the meat of an animal is somehow more sacred than the cape, head, intestines, tail, or whatever…

        20. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Kenneth.

          Actually, I’m correct with my use of the word sycophant. You were clearly sucking up to Anonymous, despite me telling you to stay out of this argument and to kindly piss off, which I’m through trying to tell you. You want to play, fine. Let’s play.

          You are asking me to define what is right, and what is wrong. These definitions can be as simple as tripping someone while they’re crossing a street vs helping them cross, or they can be as complex as international politics and policies. You are asking me to give you a proven example of a binding force that usually steers human-kind away from self destruction. Short answer, I can’t. I can only say some things are wrong, some things are right, and give you examples. It’s up to you to make the connections, though you’re failing badly at accomplishing this simple task. This isn’t a conceding defeat, for lack of argument, this is me saying that I personally do not have the skills needed to give you a sense of right and wrong in a simple paragraph, when your family and your life experiences should have aligned your moral compass over the years, though you obviously have no moral compass to speak of.

          Racial Epithets are references to someone’s race in a derogatory manner. I will concede this, that the word Epithet, does not mean what I thought it meant, according to Dictionary.com. However, modern use of the word Epithet, means to refer to someone in an insulting manner. This can also be a vague description, as one could say you are an example of white trash, or a retard, all the way to calling someone an n—-r, or other extremely pejorative titles. The strength of these names is also a variable, but it generally is accepted that you don’t say certain words if you don’t want to start a fight. Perhaps you’ve lived in a bubble all this time.

          A call to fight, is even more vague. It is any sort of antagonizing speech that challenges the honor or worth of someone. This can again be very subjective, but usually only results in a verbal altercation, some name calling, and then parting insults. Think common road rage.

          These two are unspoken rules of society. A lost term would be Etiquette.

          The third, Dangerous Ideologies, is very specific. Again, I refuse to open that box, out of fear of being banned, but I will say there is only one current ideology that is and always has been dangerous. How dangerous? Well, I cannot even mention it for fear of reprisal, though increasingly, that fear of reprisal is being replaced with frustration and outrage. Who gets to dictate what is dangerous? The correct question is WHAT gets to dictate what is dangerous, and that would be history. Recent events through to ancient history.

          But I digress. The point is, I cannot tell you or give you a physically tangible reason as to why killing a captive lion is wrong. This should have been something you learned growing up, but clearly didn’t. All I can do is tell you it’s wrong, and state similar examples.

          It does not benefit the community any more than any other activity. It only effects the hunter, the hunts master or whatever the man’s title is, and those who raised the lion to be killed. The difference between this and a pig raised for slaughter, is the amount of resources required to raise a tame big cat, then betray it and shoot it dead. Perhaps it’s the betrayal part that pisses me off and that you don’t get, because I know betraying something or someone is wrong. You, I’m not so sure about.

          Finally, I do care about my arguments and how I present them. That’s why I give long, thought out responses instead of just hurling insults, and even my insults are thought out, not just simple minded four letter words, though they may achieve the same effect. I also care about winning the argument, which is why I’m still on this awful topic instead of moving on with my life.

          Now, I issue a challenge to you. The same one I issued to Anonymous. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong that the hunter will be missed by more than his immediate family, if that. Prove me wrong, that the economy of the region is somehow improved with these canned hunts and that wild lions somehow benefit from them. You don’t need to prove to me you have a moral compass, nobody really needs to know right from wrong, only what is legal and illegal, I suppose. Even a psychopath can go about his or her life normally, so long as they don’t break the law. Prove me wrong on the topics relevant to this article, and I will concede defeat.

          Otherwise, please shut the hell up. I’m tired of this argument.

        21. avatar Kenneth says:

          https://www.total-croatia-news.com/news/24965-lion-hunter-pero-jelinic-killed-by-foreign-or-croatian-stray-bullet
          His friend(friends are not family…immediate or otherwise), Slavko Pernar, certainly seems to miss him. I will assume that this will not qualify as “proof” enough for gronlok.
          Meanwhile, the only part of that verbose response that addressed the adult issue raised here seems to be because you believe that it takes more resources to raise a wild animal in captivity than a domesticated one. I would challenge you provide evidence for this theory. I believe that it takes less resources, not more.
          Resources aside(that is just another red herring put in to distract away from the question), this still avoids the core issue, why is meat more important than, for example, the hide?

        22. avatar Gralnok says:

          The article you linked to told of the hunter’s office being full of specimens of bear, deer, and all manner of species found in Croatia and Europe. Seems to fit the profile of someone who gets his jollies killing things.

          Here is a nice little PDF that may show the economic downsides to hunting lions. https://conservationaction.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Economists_at_Large_Lions_Share_Trophy_Hunting_Report_2017.pdf
          However, I haven’t read it in full. I only skimmed pieces of it. It may be junk science, it may be bona-fide fact. I’ve personally exhausted my amount of damns to give.
          You proved me wrong on one thing. Want to go for more? Go for it. I concede that as much of an asshole I view him to be, he will be missed by apparently more than just family.

          The PDF I linked to above, is long. Very long. Filled with mind numbing data that I could care less about. If you don’t read it, I won’t blame you.

          https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/

          The above article from National Geographic provides yet more insight, and a decent read. Something I’ll have to read sometime, but I think they are presenting both sides, not one for or against hunting lions. Since you seem to have more energy, why don’t you give it a read. Meanwhile, since I cannot back up my opinions without reading both articles, or at least one, and I really don’t care to, I admit defeat. I still think it is morally repugnant, but that’s just my opinion. I just don’t have the energy to put much more into this.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        I’m as pro-gun as anyone here. </blockquote.

        The topic isn't pro-gun. The topic is about hunting. So it really doesn't matter how pro gun you are.

        That being said anyone who hunts anything just for sport is a real asshole, period.</blockquote.
        That's a subjective opinion, to which you are entitled.

        If you’re gonna eat it cool, if its a threat or a danger to livestock or people fine…but to just kill something because its there and you can is as right as me walking up to you and punching you in the face because you were there and I can.

        Completely and logically nonsensical. There is no comparison between me, a human, the alpha species on this planet, and you punching a person in the face because you can. That’s as equivalent as me saying that because a butchershop butchers chickens and cattle, I get to punch you in the face. Incommensurable terms.

        The fact is, people, get to kill and eat animals or kill and not eat them, regardless of your subjective reasons. Further, to condone a free culture that supports freedom, requires that you embrace and tolerate ideas that you do not approve of. And in turn, those people must embrace and tolerate ideas that you do not approve of.

    4. avatar Wade says:

      After all your bitching and complaining everyday I imagine many of us will cheer when you finally meet your demise. You are holier than thou and I hate that. Honestly fuck you

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        Lame emotional response, devoid of any argument at all. You sir are on the very bottom of the dominance hierarchy in regard to logical statements.

  3. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    It says culpable manslaughter, which means this was probably an accident due to negligence, and not an instance of somebody else hunting The Most Dangerous Game.

    Still, it’s a lesson: Be very choosy about your field companions, and always be aware of your surroundings. Dick Cheney, I’m talking to you.

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      “South African police have opened a culpable homicide (manslaughter) investigation”
      This makes it sound like it was negligent, but I’m trying imagine how it could have been. If the second animal was literally “in his sights”, then I would imagine that he was quite still, and whoever had him in his sights must have been able to identify. Was this an open plain or thick bush? I imagine open plain, but am not sure.

      It seems like murder, but I know very little about this. I do not know what is involved in the South African police investigation. Since the hunter probably paid a lot for the hunt(s), I would think they’d consider the possibility of murder if it was one. They want to encourage future business. Then again, it may depend on who’s paying them the most, if there is funding from any other group.

    2. avatar Patrick says:

      It sounds like, according to one website (out of hundreds that are just copies of the original), he had given his guns(plural?) to a hunting party member (guide?) as he had become exhausted, then walked ahead a little. That makes it sound to me like there was a chance it wasn’t murder, but a neg-dis, though it still seems to me more like it would be murder. If they were hiking and he was not holding his gun, then all the claims that he was actually aiming at the animal would be false, not that this fact supports my point. As always, there’s conflicting information.

      This website also provides some information, though it’s not all clear since I used automated translation.
      https://www.jutarnji.hr/life/zivotne-price/pogledajte-kako-izgleda-trofejna-soba-covjeka-koji-je-zbog-tragicne-smrti-postao-nas-najpoznatiji-lovac-na-svijetu/6998715/

  4. avatar ACP_arms says:

    And another case of the wrong person getting shot.

    People out hunting and shooting at movement and/or noise and then injuring or killing someone is one of the few things that I instantly get upset with.

  5. avatar ironicatbest says:

    The Dog and they won’t admit to anything, not the tore up trash, poop on the floor, or shooting someone.

  6. avatar RCC says:

    I used to teach the local hunter safety course for public land here in Australia.

    The identity your target part was very hard for some people to grasp. Usually the I’ve been shooting for x years and I know everything person.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I see this type at SSAA ranges, and in particular Fudd Central at Silverdale.

      They really don’t like being told that they’ve done 1 year X number of times.

  7. avatar GS650G says:

    Doesn’t sound like an accident.

  8. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    If this was an anti hunting activists , the way to honor the hunters life is to sell a license to hunt the murderer.

  9. avatar MLee says:

    OK, the hunter got his ass blown off. Maybe in his last few breaths he understood the pain he’s undoubtedly inflicted on countless creatures. My burning question, hows the lion?

    1. avatar Jay says:

      You’re a horses ass. Do you eat meat? If you don’t then at least I could give your opinion a second thought because you’re not a hypocrite. Whether you kill an animal in the wild or on a game preserve doesn’t matter. Humans do it everyday on farms around the world. Should those farmers suffer? Think about that next time you trot your lazy ass to whole foods for a ribeye.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Let me guess, mlee, you’re pro choice, right?

      1. avatar MLee says:

        Nope, I’m not.
        And Jay, while I am fully aware of the abuses that happen in the commercial food industry, I by no means condone it. What I don’t agree with is trophy hunting. You are welcome to your opinions as I am. Remember that next time you call people names little boy.

        1. avatar Jay says:

          Abuses? I’m not talking about abuses I’m talking about simply killing an animal for food. What is the difference whether it’s killed in the wild or on a farm? Many people trophy hunt or trophy fish and also like to eat what they kill or catch. So then explain to me what is an acceptable killing of an animal is in your opinion. When you’re done you can take your sensitive thoughts and go to a Peta blog where you can discuss this with the other cucks like yourself.

        2. avatar Gralnok says:

          Hunting any animal when you don’t intend to eat the meat, is wrong. There are exceptions, such as overpopulating animals, or invasive species, but when it’s done with lions, it’s wrong. Again, unless you plan on eating that lion. Also, to Jay, kindly go and fornicate with a rusty farm implement.
          Also, what the hell does abortion have to do with this?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Gralnok. I find that a lot of anti hunters that bewail the killing of an animal and call hunters ‘murderers’ are pro abortion.

          Weird.

        4. avatar Gralnok says:

          To JWM
          Well, I won’t deny it, I am pro abortion. I had typed out a massive long response, but then I thought, “I can shorten this down” so I cut out the reasoning and arguments, unless you want them, and I’ll keep this tidy.
          Yes, I’m pro abortion. There’s too many people on this planet, as is We don’t need more.
          No, I don’t consider hunters murderers. They are hunters. They prefer to bag their own meat instead of trusting big companies and slaughterhouses with what they eventually will eat.
          No, I don’t hunt, but I will kill animals in self defense, or out of mercy. (dying creatures by the roadside, that sort of thing.) If forced to, I could and would hunt.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          Gralnok is the result of decades of Disney-anthropomorphism, and the utterly fantastic thought that were the roles reversed, somehow they wouldn’t do it to us.

          Kids. If were weren’t turning the world over to them, the ignorance and naivete would be a laugh riot.

        6. avatar Gralnok says:

          To 16v. See above comment.

        7. avatar 16V says:

          Thank Gralnok, I read your emotional non-response.

          Can you debate the point now?

        8. avatar Gralnok says:

          To 16v. Very well, you want to have a civilized discussion? Okay, I’ll set aside the petty name calling if you will do the same.

          What part of these canned hunts, or really, any hunt involving killing your prey and then snapping a selfie with the dead animal before leaving it to rot, seems right to you? Just because you can do it, doesn’t make it right or just. You could do any number of horrible things that are completely legal, but that wouldn’t make them any less right. If you kill in self defense, that’s a different thing entirely, but going after lions, captive bred or wild, is wrong. Captive bred even more so, because they were raised by humans and don’t regard them as dangerous. They aren’t domesticated, not by a long shot, but I see it as no different than shooting a domestic dog or cat. It’s pointless, wrong, and cruel, regardless of legality.

        9. avatar Gralnok says:

          *any more right. Alas, it’s late and I’m not as on the ball as I could be.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      OK, the hunter got his ass blown off. Maybe in his last few breaths he understood the pain he’s undoubtedly inflicted on countless creatures. My burning question, hows the lion?

      I don’t give a s**t about the lion. I reserve my feelings and emotions for my kind only. Do I want lions to go extinct? Absolutely not. I want my future progeny to enjoy their existence. That said, It’s very strange to me to see one extend their feelings for a lion who was killed over a man who was killed. Humans are carnivores. That means we eat meat. That means animals die for our sustenance. That means I reserve my emotions for the tragedy and suffering of life for the existence of humans. Not animals.

  10. avatar Shawn says:

    Francis Macomber?

  11. avatar Jim says:

    Guy on a canned hunt killing lions bred to be killed was killed. Sorry, not sorry. People like that give hunting a bad name anyway.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Careful, Jay will come down here and call you names!! He seems….sensitive.

      1. avatar Jay says:

        Haha you’re the sensitive one now talking about me in a reply to someone else’s post. Hit the bricks you big baby if you can’t handle someone rebutting your opinion on here GTFO.

  12. avatar Ollie says:

    Since overpopulating humans are primarily the cause of the demise of the lion and other species, the sprawling cities of the planet should be carpet bombed down to a sustainable population level. It’s for the critters. Save The Lions, Pandas, Elephants, Crickets….. !!!

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      We’ll do that to ourselves soon enough. =/

  13. avatar Jay says:

    I love the tacticool range commandos on here that have never punched a hole in anything but paper and got their firearms training from call of duty. They passed their “judgement” on trophy hunting claiming it’s unethical. Yet right now there are thousands of Americans who would love to shut down the tactifools pastime of tearing up targets every weekend. We’re all gun owners. Fudds and tactifools better start supporting each other. You own guns? Then I support your right to do whatever you legally want with it.

  14. avatar rt66paul says:

    While I question this industry, if it is legal where he did the deed, and he paid to do so, he did not deserve any punishment by man for doing so.
    There is such a thing as punishment of self, if not by God. Whoever killed this man on purpose also will face these punishments as well as man’s punishment.

  15. avatar Dz says:

    Most of the anti hunters in the comments here think that meat goes to waste In Africa? That’s nonsense. I am willing to wager that someone if not local villagers carve that shit up and take it home. Ever heard of bush meat? I have multiple acquaintances that have hunted in Africa and both have told about whatever the hunted was carved up used by villagers for food and little or no waste was produced. In fact in some cases the gamekeeper officer that must accompany the hunt party arranged the processing with locals. The hunters I know got to have some premier steaks out if their kills and that’s about it. I realize this canned hunt thing is a little different but I would wager that even the lion meat gets used.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Actually, that’s a very obvious fact that somehow didn’t occur to me. Unlike North American trophy hunting, nothing goes to waste in Africa. The fact that lion meat is cooked and eaten does irritate me slightly, but that’s because of an inherent bias towards lions. I’d much rather them be shot, killed, and eaten, than shot, killed, and left to rot. Given my preferences, I think all trophy hunting is stupid and lions should be left alone, but again, that’s a personal opinion.

  16. avatar Will says:

    Finding it hard to feel sorry for this POS.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email