4 ms·

> This is a game you can't win by protecting the animals > alone. You need to kill demand. Why not satisfy the demand? We're not worried about the demand f

by avar 10y ago

> This is a game you can't win by protecting the animals > alone. You need to kill demand. Why not satisfy the demand? We're not worried about the demand for chickens making them extinct, but if chickens were still delicious but it was illegal to trade them we'd surely be in the same situation with chickens facing certain extinction. Why isn't that an acceptable solution for elephants? Developed western countries sell expensive hunting tags for large animals. Are elephants stuck in some economical limbo where it's too expensive to raise them but too tempting to kill them in the wild? Or is profitable culling simply rejected out of hand for moral reasons that aren't applied to similar animals in the west (e.g. bears).

astazangasta 10y ago
As far as I know you can't actually breed elephants in captivity very successfully. This link has some good info: http://right-tourism.com/2014/10/captive-elephants-arent-contributing-conservation/#sthash.XbYiA8H1.dpbs http://right-tourism.com/2014/10/captive-elephants-arent-con...
- avar 10y ago
  I'm not talking about shooting captive elephants in zoos, but having legalized hunting in massive game reserves big enough for these animals to range in. E.g. this Radiolab episode interviews a guy who paid to hunt a black rhino, it goes into how populations of wild animals have been boosted in certain parts of Africa by massive game reserves that are run for-profit for hunting purposes: http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/
  - astrodust 10y ago
    This might be news to you but it's pretty much an open secret that most of those ranges are barely distinguishable from poaching. They work hard to justify their kills, like they'll claim an animal needs to be put down anyway, or there's an unusually large concentration of them in one spot and it's not practical to relocate them, anything to meet the base legal requirement. They give a thin veneer of legality to an otherwise illegal practice.
    - avar 10y ago
      Sure, they'll figure out any excuse to kill some of their animals for profit. Let's say I give you that, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on there. Still, wouldn't it be in their best interest to maintain a sustainable population of their animals least they kill the golden goose? Because if that's the case their aims perfectly align with conservationists.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        This isn't like Ducks Unlimited where they work hard to protect wetlands and duck populations even if they're only doing that so they can shoot them. Those ducks live natural lives and a very small percentage are shot down. As a side-benefit we get lots of natural wilderness left untouched for other wildlife to live in and thrive. These "hunts" are usually injured or malnourished animals unleashed in fairly small pens and shot for trophies. It's absolutely ridiculous and there's no sport in it at all. They have absolutely no interest in conservation and they'll let people shoot whatever animals they can get their hands on. If they run out of elephants they'll just move on to something else.
        avar 10y ago
        > They have absolutely no interest in conservation. Who's "they"? Are you saying that wild game reserves just categorically don't work and can't preserve wild populations of animals? Do you only think that about Africa (why?) or e.g. also for U.S. National Parks or other areas where you can buy hunting tags? Full disclosure: I don't hunt, I have no interested in doing so. I'm just perplexed that solutions that seem to work in the west to align economic incentives with conservation aren't being applied in Africa. And furthermore, when you ask about it you don't get any sort of specific answers, but just out of hand dismissive answers seemingly based on motivated reasoning without any explanation of why certain systems would work for animals A in country X, but not animals B in country Y.
        astrodust 10y ago
        The companies that offer "hunting safari" programs aren't really concerned about what they're hunting so long as it's got the right cachet. If all elephants are wiped out they'll just move on to the next best thing. If everything but a handful of gazelle were wiped out, they'd be pitching gazelle hunting tours and making a fortune doing it. For them the closer something is to extinct the more they profit. In the US hunting is far more closely regulated and the sorts of animals you can gun down are still limited. Endangered species are off the menu. Also consider that Ducks Unlimited wants there to be more duck hunters, and for that to be possible they need more ducks, which means they need more wetlands. It's in their best interest to keep the wetlands large, healthy, and full of ducks. They don't make money off of hunting rare, nearly extinct ducks. In fact, that probably hurts them in the long run since it ruins it for future generations of hunters. "Solutions that work in the West" may not work in Africa because while the US is a coherent political entity with federal policies regarding poaching, Africa is a multitude of countries each with their own local geopolitical and economic situations. There is no one authority that can protect elephants since their territory is so vast. No other animal on earth wanders as far, as frequently, and is the target of such aggressive poaching. That title of most persecuted used to be held by whales. They're only just starting to recover from the damage that was done over the last few centuries. Poaching a whale is not an easy thing to do since you need very expensive, specialized equipment and a huge crew. Poaching elephants is something anyone with a truck and a big enough gun can do. It's a totally different situation.
astrodust 10y ago
Morality aside, not every animal in the world can be bred and used for sport hunting. In fact, very few animals can even be domesticated, and the ones that are common now are in that exclusive club of those that are useful and can be domesticated. People have tried for centuries to domesticate elephants and have failed. The best we can do now is train them. Killing elephants for a small amount of ivory is extremely wasteful. If you could bio-engineer some kind of ivory-growing organism, or make some already domesticated animal grow ivory horns (e.g. cows, goats) then you might be able to boost supply to a degree that's meaningful.
- avar 10y ago
  What does domestication have to do with the utility of animals for sport hunting? Those are entirely different things. The grizzly, black bear, moose, buffalo, deer, countless bird species etc. can't be domesticated, but they can be hunted without endangering their species as a whole.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    They're notably not endangered any more than raccoons or skunks are. There's sufficiently large wild populations that limited sport hunting will have a minimal impact on their survival. This is not the same with rare species like elephants, especially those that take decades to fully mature and have extremely complex social structures that are violently disrupted by poaching. Bears and moose are largely independent. Buffalo and deer work in herds, but are constantly victims of predation to keep their numbers in check. Elephants and rhinos do not have a lot of predators other than humans, and the biggest threat to their existence may very well be poachers.
zo1 10y ago
Due to all the anti-poaching laws, it's probably illegal to own elephants at this point. Assuming someone is willing to farm these creatures, they need to have some seed stock in order to start breeding (even if it is on a large game-farm). Good lucky trying to get any government to sell you some elephants that you will be trying to breed. Then again, you get yet another side that thinks it's perfectly OK to destroy the existing supply of confiscated goods. I.e. Burning large amounts of ivory, just because. Have a look here: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/ They burned 105 tons of ivory in one day.

by avar 10y ago

astazangasta 10y ago

As far as I know you can't actually breed elephants in captivity very successfully. This link has some good info: http://right-tourism.com/2014/10/captive-elephants-arent-contributing-conservation/#sthash.XbYiA8H1.dpbs http://right-tourism.com/2014/10/captive-elephants-arent-con...

avar 10y ago
I'm not talking about shooting captive elephants in zoos, but having legalized hunting in massive game reserves big enough for these animals to range in. E.g. this Radiolab episode interviews a guy who paid to hunt a black rhino, it goes into how populations of wild animals have been boosted in certain parts of Africa by massive game reserves that are run for-profit for hunting purposes: http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/
- astrodust 10y ago
  This might be news to you but it's pretty much an open secret that most of those ranges are barely distinguishable from poaching. They work hard to justify their kills, like they'll claim an animal needs to be put down anyway, or there's an unusually large concentration of them in one spot and it's not practical to relocate them, anything to meet the base legal requirement. They give a thin veneer of legality to an otherwise illegal practice.
  - avar 10y ago
    Sure, they'll figure out any excuse to kill some of their animals for profit. Let's say I give you that, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on there. Still, wouldn't it be in their best interest to maintain a sustainable population of their animals least they kill the golden goose? Because if that's the case their aims perfectly align with conservationists.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      This isn't like Ducks Unlimited where they work hard to protect wetlands and duck populations even if they're only doing that so they can shoot them. Those ducks live natural lives and a very small percentage are shot down. As a side-benefit we get lots of natural wilderness left untouched for other wildlife to live in and thrive. These "hunts" are usually injured or malnourished animals unleashed in fairly small pens and shot for trophies. It's absolutely ridiculous and there's no sport in it at all. They have absolutely no interest in conservation and they'll let people shoot whatever animals they can get their hands on. If they run out of elephants they'll just move on to something else.
      - avar 10y ago
        > They have absolutely no interest in conservation. Who's "they"? Are you saying that wild game reserves just categorically don't work and can't preserve wild populations of animals? Do you only think that about Africa (why?) or e.g. also for U.S. National Parks or other areas where you can buy hunting tags? Full disclosure: I don't hunt, I have no interested in doing so. I'm just perplexed that solutions that seem to work in the west to align economic incentives with conservation aren't being applied in Africa. And furthermore, when you ask about it you don't get any sort of specific answers, but just out of hand dismissive answers seemingly based on motivated reasoning without any explanation of why certain systems would work for animals A in country X, but not animals B in country Y.
        astrodust 10y ago
        The companies that offer "hunting safari" programs aren't really concerned about what they're hunting so long as it's got the right cachet. If all elephants are wiped out they'll just move on to the next best thing. If everything but a handful of gazelle were wiped out, they'd be pitching gazelle hunting tours and making a fortune doing it. For them the closer something is to extinct the more they profit. In the US hunting is far more closely regulated and the sorts of animals you can gun down are still limited. Endangered species are off the menu. Also consider that Ducks Unlimited wants there to be more duck hunters, and for that to be possible they need more ducks, which means they need more wetlands. It's in their best interest to keep the wetlands large, healthy, and full of ducks. They don't make money off of hunting rare, nearly extinct ducks. In fact, that probably hurts them in the long run since it ruins it for future generations of hunters. "Solutions that work in the West" may not work in Africa because while the US is a coherent political entity with federal policies regarding poaching, Africa is a multitude of countries each with their own local geopolitical and economic situations. There is no one authority that can protect elephants since their territory is so vast. No other animal on earth wanders as far, as frequently, and is the target of such aggressive poaching. That title of most persecuted used to be held by whales. They're only just starting to recover from the damage that was done over the last few centuries. Poaching a whale is not an easy thing to do since you need very expensive, specialized equipment and a huge crew. Poaching elephants is something anyone with a truck and a big enough gun can do. It's a totally different situation.

astrodust 10y ago

Morality aside, not every animal in the world can be bred and used for sport hunting. In fact, very few animals can even be domesticated, and the ones that are common now are in that exclusive club of those that are useful and can be domesticated. People have tried for centuries to domesticate elephants and have failed. The best we can do now is train them. Killing elephants for a small amount of ivory is extremely wasteful. If you could bio-engineer some kind of ivory-growing organism, or make some already domesticated animal grow ivory horns (e.g. cows, goats) then you might be able to boost supply to a degree that's meaningful.

avar 10y ago
What does domestication have to do with the utility of animals for sport hunting? Those are entirely different things. The grizzly, black bear, moose, buffalo, deer, countless bird species etc. can't be domesticated, but they can be hunted without endangering their species as a whole.
- astrodust 10y ago
  They're notably not endangered any more than raccoons or skunks are. There's sufficiently large wild populations that limited sport hunting will have a minimal impact on their survival. This is not the same with rare species like elephants, especially those that take decades to fully mature and have extremely complex social structures that are violently disrupted by poaching. Bears and moose are largely independent. Buffalo and deer work in herds, but are constantly victims of predation to keep their numbers in check. Elephants and rhinos do not have a lot of predators other than humans, and the biggest threat to their existence may very well be poachers.

zo1 10y ago

Due to all the anti-poaching laws, it's probably illegal to own elephants at this point. Assuming someone is willing to farm these creatures, they need to have some seed stock in order to start breeding (even if it is on a large game-farm). Good lucky trying to get any government to sell you some elephants that you will be trying to breed. Then again, you get yet another side that thinks it's perfectly OK to destroy the existing supply of confiscated goods. I.e. Burning large amounts of ivory, just because. Have a look here: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/ They burned 105 tons of ivory in one day.