3 ms·

please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post. I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general

please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post. I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals where poaching IS the major problem. and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they just didn't do it. but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of prison?

grzm 10y ago
Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way discussions get derailed. As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
Someone 10y ago
Work towards them having assets, towards those _not_ poaching having prestige, and towards improving their lives so that they prefer staying out of prison. It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally. In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)

3 ms·

please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post. I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general

by jimjimjim 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way discussions get derailed. As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
Someone 10y ago
Work towards them having assets, towards those _not_ poaching having prestige, and towards improving their lives so that they prefer staying out of prison. It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally. In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)