Veteran big game hunter dies after elephant, felled by gunfire, collapses on him

Elephants are awesome.

Not celebrating the guy's death, but I also don't have much sympathy for him.

broken arrow wrote:

So ridiculous to shoot an Elephant. And then what? leave the carcass there to rot. I understand people that hunt something and then eat the meat, but to kill an animal just to kill it makes no sense.

Everybody knows you run a marathon and eat an elephant the same way--one bite at a time.

kangaroomie wrote:

T&F Nut wrote:

I'm not celebrating the death of this person, but the world doesn't need people like him. We are better off without him. People who kill these animals are sick. There is no justification to kill these animals. It's just to satisfy their morbid sense of gratification.

I hope you're vegan or at least vegetarian. The same concept applies to the meat, egg, and dairy industries.

Not that these industries are humane, but killing animals for human sustenance is totally different than killing them for sport. And honestly, killing elephants, which are very intelligent and known for mourning their dead, is far more morally repugnant to me than killing a chicken.

there are more humans than elephants....and this guy didn't need an elephant 'trophy'. he could have used his money spent on travel/permits/equipment/etc to save $ for his family's future.his kids might at least come away from this realizing hunting big animals with dogs and rifles is spineless and not a good thing for the worldthink of it like this: he was a blood doper and caught. we shouldn't care about him. he let everyone down. he couldn't even cheat right

Cool beans dude! wrote:

Awesome! Hilarious that his kids don't have a father now! Elephants are more important than people!

I have absolutely no problem with sustenance hunting and if this guy intended to eat the elephant, I would be ok with it. Killing for sport is inhumane; however, I still don't wish death upon a hunters, the lost of a human life is way more important than an animal.

Cool beans dude! wrote:

not bothered by it wrote:

Is your opinion that I should be able to kill anything that is less important than me, and that it is a tragedy if I am harmed in that act?

If your entire life revolves around killing things of beauty just to watch them die, I don't have much sympathy, even if you are "more important" than the things you are destroying.

Elephant hunting is legal and a legitimate way to earn a living.

Disagree with it all you want, but celebrating his death is crass and unbecoming. He left a family behind.

And yea, I'll go out on a limb and say humans are more important than animals. If you drove past a dead person in the road you'd probably stop - you probably don't stop for dead deer and squirrels.

I do. If they are fresh they are mighty fine eating.

Monkey man wrote:

sbeefyk1 wrote:

If his family was important to him he wouldn't choose something that is dangerous. Big game hunters know they could very easily die everyday they go hunting. If the thrill of killing an animal trumps seeing your family and spending time with them, then it is what it is.

I do at least agree with you that animals are inferior. Evolution put us on the pedestal to crush any animals that try to challenge our dominance. This is why guns were made. We needed a way to fight dangerous animals that were killing our families. Unless these elephants are running through villages killing children then I don't see any point to go hunt them today.

Not so fast monkey man science guy. There is no evolution. Man is superior to the animals, we agree there. However, we were created that way.

We were created with guns?

TrackCoach wrote:

I have absolutely no problem with sustenance hunting and if this guy intended to eat the elephant, I would be ok with it. Killing for sport is inhumane; however, I still don't wish death upon a hunters, the lost of a human life is way more important than an animal.

Charles Manson or Harambe?

bigtool05 wrote:

kangaroomie wrote:

I hope you're vegan or at least vegetarian. The same concept applies to the meat, egg, and dairy industries.

Not that these industries are humane, but killing animals for human sustenance is totally different than killing them for sport. And honestly, killing elephants, which are very intelligent and known for mourning their dead, is far more morally repugnant to me than killing a chicken.

Human sustenance? So humans must eat the flesh of dead animals and milk of other speicies to live a happy and healthy life?

Pigs have also been shown to have high levels of intelligence; higher than young children(age 3) in many studies. Would that make the life of a pig more valuable than the life of a young child?

I don't think we should use intelligence to determine whose life is more valuable. All life is considered valuable whether you possess intelligence or not.

Notisland wrote:

explainer to the snowflakes wrote:

There are way too many elephants in some areas. Somebody has to shoot them. It's much better that a rich person pays big money for shooting one than making the African gubmints pay someone to do it.

Yes, you are all idiots.

There are way too many humans in some areas. Somebody has to shoot them. It's much better that a rich person pays big money for shooting one than making the African gubmints pay someone to do it.

Yes, you are all idiots.

+1

Wanton destruction of habitat and the balance of predator/prey by an ignorant dominant species has caused so much trouble.

kangaroomie wrote:

bigtool05 wrote:

Not that these industries are humane, but killing animals for human sustenance is totally different than killing them for sport. And honestly, killing elephants, which are very intelligent and known for mourning their dead, is far more morally repugnant to me than killing a chicken.

Human sustenance? So humans must eat the flesh of dead animals and milk of other speicies to live a happy and healthy life?

Pigs have also been shown to have high levels of intelligence; higher than young children(age 3) in many studies. Would that make the life of a pig more valuable than the life of a young child?

I don't think we should use intelligence to determine whose life is more valuable. All life is considered valuable whether you possess intelligence or not.

On a side note, I've always found it interesting how far people are willing to go to save ducklings. I'm sure we've all seen the videos on Facebook of people climbing into sewer grates to save ducklings who have fallen through the sewer grate.

Yet male chicks are put into grinders on their first days of life. Interesting how someone will go so far out of their way to rescue a duckling. Yet, a small dietary change could save thousands of chicks.

This guy has his head on straight. I support your position.

Elephant numbers down by 1/3 in around ten years.

Pick one wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

I have absolutely no problem with sustenance hunting and if this guy intended to eat the elephant, I would be ok with it. Killing for sport is inhumane; however, I still don't wish death upon a hunters, the lost of a human life is way more important than an animal.

Charles Manson or Harambe?

Ludd wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/wildlife-african-elephants-population-decrease-great-elephant-census/

Elephant numbers down by 1/3 in around ten years.

The article attributes the huge decline from poaching, which is mostly for the ivory. Ironically, big game hunters who legally hunt animals provide a significant source of income and generate incentives/funding for conservation. Big game hunters in Africa don't want these animals to go extinct or to lose their habitat any less than our forum's resident vegans.

I have no desire to hunt, but however unpalatable some find the sport, truth is these hunters often do more in real terms for these animals than their critics.

Cool beans dude! wrote:

If that's actually your philosophy you shouldn't celebrate the loss of any life, no matter the reason.

I don't celebrate the loss of any life. What are you talking about?

Xanax wrote:

Killing an animal for sustenance is different than killing an animal to mount its head on a wall and brag about your gamesmanship, and in most philosophies is less morally reprehensible. Or is this new to you?

It is different but not by much. Animal products are not required for sustenance. There is no excuse unless you are allergic to vegetables, fruit, and dairy.

bigtool05 wrote:

Not that these industries are humane, but killing animals for human sustenance is totally different than killing them for sport. And honestly, killing elephants, which are very intelligent and known for mourning their dead, is far more morally repugnant to me than killing a chicken.

1) elephants are not more or less intelligent than chickens

2) intelligence should have nothing to do with whether or not your life is valuable. Is it better to kill people with "low IQs" or mental inabilities than unimpaired people?

Ironical wrote:

The article attributes the huge decline from poaching, which is mostly for the ivory. Ironically, big game hunters who legally hunt animals provide a significant source of income and generate incentives/funding for conservation. Big game hunters in Africa don't want these animals to go extinct or to lose their habitat any less than our forum's resident vegans.

I have no desire to hunt, but however unpalatable some find the sport, truth is these hunters often do more in real terms for these animals than their critics.

That makes as much sense as sacrificing 1 woman to be raped for money in order to raise money for rape prevention and awareness for all other women.