I'm not an environmentalist. I say "get a haircut hippie" a lot and I call people pinko commies all the time. I'm never going to be a vegetarian, in fact, one day I hope to pull a Ron Swanson and consume a Turf & Turf.

With that being said, you don't have to be an environmentalist or whatever to be upset over the killing of Cecil the Lion. I'm all for hunting, if there's a legitimate reason behind it. If you're going to hunt a deer with the intent of eating it, have at it. If you're going to hunt squirrels or other small animals for population control, so be it. Even tribes in Africa hunt lions. But when they do, they use every part possible. They make sure to feed the sick and old first, and their tribe can eat for days, or even weeks. They don't kill animals just because they can.

Then there's this a-hole.

Walt Palmer paid around $50,000 for some Zimbabweans to take him on a hunt. He ended up killing Cecil the Lion, who was popular among locals and tourists alike. When he realized that the world was calling for his extradition to Zimbabwe, he released a statement, where he said,

"To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted."

Well you're wrong there, sport. Whether he knew if this lion was a local favorite or not, he purposefully lured the lion off of a wildlife refuge to kill it. After he killed it, he skinned it, took the head, and left the remaining carcass for the buzzards. Oh, and the bow and arrow he used? That was against Zimbabwean hunting regulations.

Enough about this case though. You've probably heard about it every day in the news and see it every time you scroll through facebook.

What I'd really like to address however, is the inherent lack of reasoning behind big game hunting. How do people get joy out of killing a large animal like a lion, tiger, elephant, or rhino? Sure, they probably get an adrenaline rush, so they feel like they just defeated a creature with no natural predators, but why? They killed an animal with a bow and arrow or a high-caliber rifle. The animal didn't stand a chance. That would be like me going to the local elementary school and beating up a 6 year old and then bragging about it. Of course I was going to win that fight, just like a hunter is going to be able to kill any large animal in Africa as long as they have a gun or bow with them.

Jimmy Kimmel addressed this issue very well. I think my favorite line from the video was when he openly asked Walt Palmer, "Is it that difficult for you to get an erection that you need to kill things that are stronger than you?"

That's just what I'm just so confused about. Big-game hunters look past the fact that these animals are endangered or even extinct in some countries to get that rush and feeling that they are the most dominant predator in the world. But do you really need to kill a big animal to understand that? We're causing animals to become endangered and to go extinct every day. We kill each other all the time. We're killing the planet day by day. So why do you need to kill a defenseless animal to re-affirm the fact that we're the world's deadliest predator?

If Jimmy Kimmel was right, here's a good ad for big-game hunters-

Look, enough is enough. Stop big-game hunting. There is no need for it. Killing a large animal doesn't make you more of a man, in fact it might actually make you less of one. If you have the desire to hunt, go hunt something that is all over the place, and use it for food, or donate it to the needy. But let's please just end big-game hunting.

If you really crave that adrenaline rush, go fight a wild animal with just your bare hands. If you're hunting to prove your manliness, what better way to prove it than to win a hands on fight with a wild animal? Actually, better yet, lose the fight. You'll make the world a better place.

Ricky Gervais sums this all up extremely well. Why shoot an animal and mount its head on a wall, when you can actually be up close and personal with them?