Sabrina Corgatelli, Fick


Sabrina Corgatelli, a university accountant from McCammon, Idaho, is engaging in such blatantly fickish conduct that I am tempted to change the term “fick” to “corgatelli.” I won’t, because the conduct by the felicitously named Leroy Fick (in proudly declaring to the media in 2011 that he would continue to accept public assistance from Michigan despite winning the state lottery) had no defenders at all, while Corgatelli has thousands of fans who are evidently just as warped as she is. Thus Corgatelli is a fick—an individual who not only engages in unethical conduct but who publicly brags about it—and Leroy Fick avoids the fate of being labelled a corgatelli.

I just wanted to get that bit of terminology housekeeping out of the way at the outset. I must say, however, that at least fick Fick’s motives for his fickism are traditional and comprehensible: selfishness and greed. Corgatelli pays large sums of money to travel large distances in order to kill endangered species. If forced with a crossbow to my head to play Sophie’s Choice with one fick or the other, I’ll keep Leroy.

Corgatelli has set out to taunt critics of Cecil the Lion Killer Walter Palmer by posting  serial images of herself on  social media, posing triumphantly with her big game victims, sporting captions like this one, attached to the photo above:

” I got a amazing old Giraffe. Such a amazing animal!! I couldn’t be any happier!! My emotion after getting him was a feeling I will never forget!!!’

In a Facebook post last week, she wrote: “All you haters, This is for you!! Have a great day, cuz I know I will!!'” and along with an image of a smiling Leonardo DiCaprio in his role as the Great Gatsby—wait, she hasn’t shot Leonardo, has she?? HAS SHE? OHMYGOD!-–she wrote: ‘To all the haters – stay tuned, you’re gonna have so much more to be pissed about.”

Nice. Even Leroy might be revolted by her.


Pointer: Res Ipsa Loquitur

46 thoughts on “Sabrina Corgatelli, Fick

    • You sadly don’t get it Mike…These gorgeous animals are in danger of being EXTINCT. So even if you are selfish and don’t have a sense of compassion, at least try to think of your kids or future generations that might not have the opportunity of seeing these magnificent creations in person..One never knows…Maybe God will be kind and your kids won’t have your DNA and might actually CARE and have a sense of appreciations for other living things that share this earth with us..

    • Glad you ficked the name. “Fick” has a bite to it, not to mention its correlation to another strong word, but “corgatelli” is, well, just mildly related to a royal dog and a pasta suffix.

      Consider, also, that if she HAD shot DiCaprio, legal action could have been taken.

      Damn, I shouldn’t be facetious here. Giraffes are such gentle animals.

  1. I can see that an argument can be made for shooting a lion, especially one that is poaching on humans. Also, I read *The Short Happy Life Of Francis MacComber* many years ago and apparently there is some danger in hunting lions. But a giraffe and bragging about it? This is on the same level in my mind of shooting your dog.

    • I don’t know if the “sporting” nature of hunting more dangerous Creatures makes it more ethical than less dangerous Creatures. In that instance, I think it is an non-ethical consideration, but the full stop on hunting ethics occurs at the question:

      “Is there are legitimate reason to hunt this animal?”

      If the answer is Yes, then I could care less how “fair” you make it for the animal…just like in battle, fair means, “I can lose”, and in battle, I don’t want the possibility of losing to ever rear it’s head, so I’ll make every battle as unfair in my favor as possible.

      If the answer is No, then there are no follow on questions, the hunt is unethical.

      There is one way to make a lion hunt less dangerous: don’t hunt a lion…

      • “Is there are legitimate reason to hunt this animal?”

        This. I know people who hunt deer; deer hunting is a required part of population control due to over-hunting of predators. They then actually USE the deer they bag, bringing back the meat and freezing it for the rest of the year instead of just taking a trophy and leaving the carcass. I think this pattern of behavior is a good example of ethical hunting.

  2. As I was driving to work, I began formulating a new concept regarding hunting, a topic which I frequently debate with my son who is OK with it mostly (although he’s P.O.’d about Cecil).

    If someone wants to hunt for sport or “fun,” I might be ready to accept it if the battle were fair. We humans are part of the animal world, and animals who engage in hunting (usually for food) do so with no advantage other than the specifics of their anatomy and the sharpness of their brain. Humans should be held to the same standard. So, ok, you want to stupidly challenge an apex predator like a lion? Do it without benefit of tools of ANY kind, i.e., with your bare hands. If you miraculously survive and win the battle, killing the lion — well, it was a fair fight (I guess). And you’d better use that animal for food, not wasting it on trophies. You want to try to kill a giraffe, just because — let’s see you do it in a fair fight. You’ll get your brains knocked out.

    I have always been especially outraged at the hunting concept of “shooting fish in a barrel.” For instance, going up in a helicopter with a gigantic gun, chasing your prey from the air — really? What is the point? If you have to rely on technology to help you subdue your prey, what kind of accomplishment is that? If it’s about marksmanship, go to a shooting range.

    Killing an animal because you can — what a moronic reason.

    • Except our brains are what let us make and use tools. Your condition is tantamount to demanding that humans give up all their advantages.

      Killing for the sake of killing is not a good thing, and I don’t think that much of trophy hunters for that reason. Killing for the sake of necessity, and possibly practice for when it becomes a necessity, is not a bad thing. I also don’t think much of the animal lovers who think animals should never be killed (see any article about a wild animal who kills a human, and you will almost certainly see someone who things it’s all the human’s fault and that we should leave the animal alone). Animals are NOT people, no matter how much we anthropomorphize them. I see an ethics conflict I think: It’s beneficial for our violence filters to be set so that even violence against animals triggers it, but also good to recognize a distinction between wild and civilized beings.

      I find it a little sad that the death of a lion in Zimbabwe is more interesting to the press than the terrible living conditions of the humans in Zimbabwe.

    • Is hunting “for fun” natural?

      I’d wager a bet that our Cavemen ancestors, if they happened one season to be well provisioned from the previous hunt and sitting fat and happy on their stone didn’t say “Hey, fellas, remember that ole Mammoth we nabbed that killed Ugh and severely maimed Argh? That was kind fun, let’s go do it for no real reason other than kicks!”

    • Nonsense, if you have a reason to kill, a legitimate or ethical reason to do so, it is completely ethical to make the fight as unfair in your advantage as possible.

      • That begs the question of whether or not it is legitimate or ethical. Sometimes, of course, it is either or both. But not when it is killing for the sport or fun of it. I don’t see how that can be justified.

        • It’s an IF-THEN statement, I’m not sure it begs the question and I don’t see how it is an illogical IF-THEN statement… If something needs to be killed, why would you see a need to increase the risk to the killer? No reason.

          However, your own comment contradicts your 3rd & 4th sentences about hunting for sport or fun being unethical (which I’ve already indicated is unethical) when in your first comment’s 2nd paragraph about being willing accept hunting for fun if humans do it with no tools…

    • Humans should be held to the same standard. So, ok, you want to stupidly challenge an apex predator like a lion? Do it without benefit of tools of ANY kind, i.e., with your bare hands.

      I disagree.
      It is as much a part of our natural state to use tools as it is for lions to use claws.
      Of course the tools we should use are only the ones we have made ourselves, with our bare hands.

  3. This whole thing reminds of this scene from “White Hunter, Black Heart”, “It’s not a crime to kill an elephant…”

    • Yes…although my sympathy is limited. When you say, “Here, everybody who’s furious about this conduct, take it and like it while I laugh and laugh and laugh” you haven’t left yourself much room to complain. Those tactics are unethical, but I don’t care to hear her say so.

  4. Killing for fun makes you a psychopath. There is a period at the end of that sentence, because anyone who is willing to make the effort can verify this. It is not debatable.
    An aside to Jack–sent you an e-mail. Let me know if you need me to send it again.

    • Well said!!!!!! Those blood thirsty, self centered psychopath’s kill for no other reason than to kill and since they can’t get permits to kill other people, they settle on killing ‘animals in a fish bowl and call it a “hobby” …REALLY?
      Patrice is absolutely right…If those cowards want it to be a ‘sport’, then even the field!!! Losing faith in humanity…One psychopath at a time!

  5. How sad that Ms. Corgatelli wants to be remembered for contributing to the demise of African species rather than preserving them. Giraffes are even more endangered than are elephants and lions. None of these animals can shoot back. How much courage does it really take to kill one under these circumstances? If she wants a fight let her go stand with the Kurds and shoot insurgents. Her he-woman antics make her just another laughable American, the ugly face of our country abroad. Kathleen

    • “How sad that Ms. Corgatelli wants to be remembered for contributing to the demise of African species rather than preserving them. Giraffes are even more endangered than are elephants and lions.

      Yep. Good summary.


      “None of these animals can shoot back.”

      Non-ethical consideration, see this

      “How much courage does it really take to kill one under these circumstances?”

      Irrelevant, courage is an enabler, but it’s presence or absence doesn’t change the ethicality of an act.

      “If she wants a fight let her go stand with the Kurds and shoot insurgents.”

      Somehow, I feel a rationalization is hidden in here somewhere.

      “Her he-woman antics make her just another laughable American, the ugly face of our country abroad. Kathleen”

      Sexist. And also, a completely ignored “face” of our country until Dentist Palmer…so not really a “face” at all, until now. But don’t worry, we’ll go back to ignoring the unethical big game hunters just as soon as the heat on planned parenthood subsides.

  6. Coming in late and way down at the bottom, so this is probably pointless, but I’m going to do it anyway.

    This woman is not a Fick, or even a Fickatelli. (Great combo, though; I picture someone who thinks he’s the Fonz but is really just a stupid dick.)

    What’s really happening here is an “ick” factor and a violation of the Niggardly Principles.

    Shooting a giraffe has the ick factor (or is it the awww… factor?) of destroying a harmless, gentle giant of an animal — the African version of Bambi — but it isn’t per se unethical. Her hunt, if it followed the principles of wildlife conservation, was probably beneficial for everyone involved, including giraffes as a whole, and there’s a very high likelihood that it was the quickest and least painful death a giraffe in the wild is likely to get.

    Whether this woman’s hunt was ethical or not depends mostly on how it was done, and without any knowledge of the circumstances, we’re in no position to judge.

    This whole Evil Trophy Hunters Killing Entire Species of Cuddly Animals For Fun brouhaha is Niggardly Principle all the way.

    The First Niggardly Principle:

    People who don’t understand why so many other people are driven to hunt, and who have absolutely no idea how today’s African safari and trophy hunting actually works, are assuming that a single highly publicized incident of sketchy behavior is the norm. (How frequently does it happen? I don’t know; I do know that there are sound, sustainable economic and ecological principles behind managed trophy hunting, and I believe that in most of Africa, that’s the norm.) Almost all of the outrage, honest though it may be, stems from ignorance and misunderstanding.

    The Second Niggardly Principle:

    This woman’s behavior so thoroughly exemplifies why this principle is necessary that calling it the “full Corgatelli” may be in order. She went out of her way to aggravate people who were already upset, and seems to have enjoyed it. Even if those who are upset are wrong or foolish (maybe even more so), the only thing this kind of bitchiness can do is exacerbate the problem and hurt people.

    The Third Niggardly Principle:

    Does this rise to the level of endangering “society, culture, individual rights and personal freedoms”? Maybe. The public overreaction to the death of Cecil the Friendly Lion (fueled in part by the unhelpful counter-reactions of people like Corgatelli) is going to harm the very animals people like to think they’re protecting. Carefully managed trophy hunting actually *protects* several endangered species and their habitat; it’s within the realm of possibility that an endangered species or two could go extinct if this anti-hunting mania goes far enough. And a culture where rules are changed and punishments issued based solely on who is angry right now or which hashtag is trending is one that only sociopaths could enjoy. Nobody should go full Corgatelli, but I think a lot of people need a metaphorical slap to the face on this one.

    • (Replying to myself…because if I don’t who else will?)

      If African trophy hunting and safari hunting are outlawed or regulated into virtual impossibility, then you leave the field wide open to the bad guys — the poachers, who have powerful financial incentives and don’t give a rat’s ass about these animals you love.

      If you love them, you have an obligation to defend them by the most effective means possible. And if that means a few of them are killed by trophy hunters whose money can fund the greater preservation effort, then you’d better suck it up and deal with reality. Otherwise you’re helping them *all* die.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.