7 ms·
Elephants Shot with Poison Arrows Travel to Humans for Help
- bmsleight_ 11y agoWow big leaps in the article, big assumptions. With little backing for the assumptions. Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"
- tsotha 11y agoI agree. The "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop, and the elephants may have shown up at that particular refuge purely out of a herd instinct. Or it could have been just dumb luck. I'm very skeptical they knew they would be helped because they mated with elephants that grew up in that place.
- vegabook 11y ago> "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop Do you contend that poachers are not the major threat to elephants? You would have to in order to reinforce your case that the article's citing them increases the chance that the story is fabricated. Otherwise I would have to conclude that fabrication is at work in your argument.
- tsotha 11y agoThe fact that poachers exist doesn't mean these particular elephants were attacked by poachers. If the writer assumed poachers based purely the poison arrows they yes, the story is, ipso facto, fabricated. Whether or not poachers are "the" major threat to elephants is irrelevant. Elephants are pest animals to the people who actually have to deal with them. The fact that the attackers used poison arrows instead of AK-47s is a pretty good indication these are not professional poachers.
- vegabook 11y agoif probability x >> (1 - x) then citing 1-x does not reinforce your case. More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true, but that there is a large body of evidence that elephants are intelligent animals. It is extremely unlikely that all of these stories are untrue. Thus the underlying thrust of your arguments (elephants are probably stupid) is disingenuous.
- pygy_ 11y ago@tsotha made two unrelated points initially: - given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well. - elephants are stupid, which I disagree with. This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.
- tsotha 11y agoEh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult claim to accept. Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
- pygy_ 11y agoActually, that's not what I wanted to write, I exagerated your point. You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it. I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.
- tsotha 11y ago>More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true... This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
- codyb 11y agoThat's a beautiful story if it is indeed the case. It seems absolutely conceivable to me that an intelligent species could mark places as safe havens. Poachers are really shitty.
- aianus 11y agoWhy are poachers shitty but ranchers are not? It seems much more ethical to me to kill an existing wild animal for money vs. breeding new animals in inhumane conditions for the sole purpose of killing them for money later on.
- fosk 11y agoWe don't necessarily have to choose: they are both unethical and evil activities.
- aianus 11y agoI agree, I just can't see why people vilify poachers and not ranchers.
- DanBC 11y agoBecause thes submitted article is about poachers, not ranchers. When someone submits an article about ranchers you don't get comments saying "but don't forget the elephant poachers".
- eruditely 11y agoBecause the article is about poachers you moralizer.
- aianus 11y agoI'm not moralizing, parent was moralizing about poachers. I couldn't care less about elephants or cattle. I just can't stand cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.
- etep 11y agoDigging in to this by searching for other related stories, in brief, my findings: 1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website. 2. Poachers do appear to use poison arrows/darts. 3. DSWT appears to be the real deal, i.e. not a phony wildlife sanctuary. I buy it that the elephants would go there. I'd like to see a better write up. Agreed that the article, as such, is a bit weak.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rgbrenner 11y ago1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website. the story on DSWT is linked from the article: https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?Rhino=&ID=849 https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...
- Mz 11y agoScience is about skepticism. Being an anti-believer who knee jerk pisses on the idea that this could possibly be true is no more scientific than the people who accept assertions uncritically. It matters relatively little whether it was actually poachers or some other human. We can be fairly certain it was actually humans that injured the animals. I also think it is not hugely important whether the animals went there intentionally seeking medical care or happened to end up in the right place. I think the most important detail of this story is that the elephants apparently cooperated with the humans that treated them, after being injured by other humans. I think that is huge and really hopeful.
- thesteamboat 11y ago> I also think it is not hugely important whether the animals went there intentionally seeking medical care or happened to end up in the right place. I respectfully disagree with this particular sentiment. Elephants intentionally seeking out treatment from a place they've never been indicates high levels of planning and general cognition. If true that would afford them a moral weight very near to that of humans (to my mind at least). Whether they were attacked by poachers or some other humans is relevant only for the particulars of this story. How intelligent elephants are is a question whose answer has widespread consequences.
- Mz 11y agoI agree with you and I am inclined to believe the elephants sought out care. My point was more "It kind of does not matter that this one story does not prove that. It still makes an important point that we should pay attention to, aside from that highly controversial detail, which is just flag-fuel on HN, basically."
- asciimo 11y agoAre "high levels of planning and general cognition" really the benchmark for deserving "moral weight?" If so, where does this leave humans with impaired cognitive abilities? Or human children?
- 11y ago
- dpflan 11y agoGreat story. In the "Animal Minds" episode, Radiolab recounts a story of divers saving a net-entangled whale, and the whale in turn "thanks" each diver. It's a good show, and the examples included are thought-provoking. If you found this story intriguing, I recommend giving this Radiolab episode a listen. If not, the stories leads to what is intelligence and connection possibilities across species, and the topic of Spindle Neurons is presented which are explored as a connection between high and low order parts of the brain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron) _ The Goods: 1. The episode: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/ 2. A related follow-up about whales: http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/
- vertis 11y agoThe original report (https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?Rhino=&ID=849 https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...) which someone else linked is much more interesting. While it definitely claims that the Elephants come to DSWT for help, it stops short of claiming that the arrows came from poachers. Indeed, I have to wonder what the survival rate is for Elephants that come into contact with poachers? The report suggests that ~10 Elephants were treated with Arrow wounds. This seems quite disconnected from the intent of poachers (kill them), and more in line with the intent of farmers (drive them away). I'm not saying it wasn't poachers (I don't know the subject well enough to claim anything like that). It just seems odd to me for a poacher to do that.
- disordinary 11y agoThe more we learn about other animals the less superior we should feel, it's now perfectly clear that there is nothing divine about human beings, and there is no magical spark that makes us better than other animals.
- adamnemecek 11y agoFurthermore if you live in Washington state, please support Initiative 1401 (http://saveanimalsfacingextinction.org http://saveanimalsfacingextinction.org) on the November ballot. This initiative would help with reducing the amount of illegal ivory coming to the US. Washington state is a strategic state because a lot of illegal ivory comes to the US from China and Washington has large ports so restricting it in Washington state will go pretty far. California has already passed a similar law. We are also looking for volunteers who would help out with the campaign outreach efforts. If you are in Washington state and have 2 hours of free time every now and then and want to help out, email me at adamnemecek at gmail.com. Furthermore, over at /r/babyelephantgifs, we've been running a fundraiser to help some conservation organizations, you can read more about it here https://www.reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs/comments/3gppt7/hey_baby_elephant_fans_today_is_world_elephant/ https://www.reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs/comments/3gppt7/he... You should for example consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights the poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed. There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of whom are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5]who was rescued a while back. This sponsorship is a pretty great gift. [0] http://www.iapf.org/en/ http://www.iapf.org/en/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fo... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander [3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust [5] https://instagram.com/p/4uSGkzgUK7/?taken-by=dswt https://instagram.com/p/4uSGkzgUK7/?taken-by=dswt
- eimai134 11y agoThank you for posting!
- aaron695 11y agoWhen I saw this was on Reddit a day or so ago, I thought thank goodness for HN and people not getting sucked into BS :(