5 ms·

Botswana MP proposes lifting elephant hunting ban

32 points by adamnemecek 8y ago

everdev 8y ago
Can anyone explain sport/trophy hunting to me? I can't imagine looking through a scope knowing you're about to end an animals life for "fun" without the thought of it's pain, social bonds or right to exist stopping you from pulling the trigger.
- bpicolo 8y ago
  FWIW, this isn't about trophy hunting at all. > Mr Guma said smallholder farmers living along the Botswana/Zimbabwe border fence had struggled for years with elephants that regularly invaded their land and destroyed their crop It's because elephants are currently causing actual problems for rural citizens of Botswana.
- whiddershins 8y ago
  There’s a great Joe Rogan podcast with a bow hunter, and Joe spends a lot of time explaining why trophy hunting can be great. It funds conservation, which decreases poaching, which is better for literally everyone involved including the animals and the poachers. I believe it also tends to be very controlled and directed so the effects can be planned. Elephants can be a huge, dangerous, nuisance (apparently) to farmers who are trying to have enough food to eat. That’s just one example.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    The benefits are greatly exaggerated https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-h... The money doesn't end up where it should and the oversight is minimal.
- monort 8y ago
  How would you answer the same question from a vegetarian? We eat meat for "fun" too, though we would be able to survive on plants. The answer is that most people don't care about animal suffering.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    I don't eat meat for fun. I eat meat because I like it and humans are omnivores. That said I try to reduce meat consumption and I buy as clean as possible. Organic makes sense when it comes to meat because of animal welfare and because it tastes much better. I also eat "lesser" parts and I love offal. I believe that when we kill an animal for food we should eat everything and not just the filets and entrecotes. I agree with you that mass meat production is an atrocity and one of the biggest moral human failings. There are alternatives, but they don't scale and are obviously more expensive. If factory meat becomes the only available option I'm out.
    - lgessler 8y ago
      > I eat meat because I like it and humans are omnivores. The "humans are omnivores" appeal, I think you'd agree, commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are things humans can do, and you might even argue were "designed" to do, that nevertheless we condemn as wrong, like killing, stealing, and using physical abuse to have one's way. Perhaps by "humans are omnivores" you meant that it's more difficult to eat healthy without animal products, which is undoubtedly true, but nothing out of reach or even especially difficult for everyone above a certain socioeconomic status. If you agree that that part's gone, all that remains is "I like it".
    - eric_h 8y ago
      > If factory meat becomes the only available option I'm out. I agree but I'd like to add a disambiguation. Factory farmed meat should be stopped, factory produced meat (i.e. with no live animals as inputs) would be pretty great.
      - CaptainZapp 8y ago
- bluGill 8y ago
  Can you explain any of your weird habits to me? Why do you spend hours staring at a screen watching a fiction? Why do you defile your body with tattoos? Why do you use an alarm clock to wake up? Why do you not worship my God? Why do you not eat dog meat? Of course I just picked some at random. I more or less ordered them from things your probably do to things you probably do not. Yet all are things that I can find somebody in the world who will think you are strange. The point is who are you to pass judgement on the likes/dislikes of others. This is a large world and it is very hard to find objective answers for likes.
  - everdev 8y ago
    I think the difference is when your action impacts the existence of another conscious being, it's no longer just about you. Your examples seem like personal choices, but in the hunting example, there are two conscious parties (the hunter and the animal) and both are required to be present for the action to occur (the kill), but only one party is consenting (the hunter). If animals spoke in the hunter's native language we'd probably stop hunting or killing them because they could adequately express their fear and anger at being killed against their will. As it is, their running away and animal noises fall on deaf ears. And yes, I don't eat dog meat (or any meat) for this reason.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      You are now showing your values though. They are not the values of the hunter. The hunter does not understand your separation. You will never understand each other because there is a fundamental difference.
adamnemecek 8y ago
You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these 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 them 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][6]. [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] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=318 http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp... [6] http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb
- vibrio 8y ago
  Yes, this. FYI: Charity Navigator gives the David Sheldrick trust a great (4of4 Stars) rating. Alas, the IAPF receives too little revenue to be rated, but is clearly a great organization and cause.
- RIMR 8y ago
  If the ban is lifted, donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation wouldn't accomplish much, since none of the elephant hunting would be illegal... There's also an elephant population problem in Botswana, so as sad is it may be, these measures are necessary.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    Poaching goes on regardless of legal status. Also they work in other places besides Botswana.
- 8y ago
klaasvakie 8y ago
It's about time Botswana did something about their elephant numbers. Chobe is practically overrun with elephants, and until now, the government seemed unwilling to keep the numbers under control. If they can raise money for conservation by combining their culling activities with trophy hunting I think it is a win for everybody. This can turn a pure cost-centre into a revenue generating activity with the income applied to other desperately underfunded efforts like Rhino conservation. I support hunting for food, but don't support trophy hunting unless it is part of a culling program or part of removing problem animals.
- undersuit 8y ago
  I question whether Botswana needs to kill their elephants, especially as reports have Botswana containing 1/3 of the entire African Elephant population. >Chobe is practically overrun with elephants And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas. I like the final line of the article: >Mr Guma therefore said government should swiftly act on how best to resolve the human/wildlife conflict and that the lift on the hunting ban and shooting of elephants in areas not designated as game reserves could be remedial to the crisis.
  - klaasvakie 8y ago
    > I question whether Botswana needs to kill their elephants, especially as reports have Botswana containing 1/3 of the entire African Elephant population. Obviously killing elephants (any animal really) in large numbers is a big problem on many levels. Transporting elephants is also difficult and expensive, and more importantly you need someplace to put them. Most of the other big game reserves in Southern Africa also have problems keeping their elephant numbers in check. Where would you take them? > And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas. I haven't been up there in a couple of years, but the fencing around Chobe is spotty at best, the entire riverfront is unfenced (at least the part you get to see as a visitor), so I don't think there is really a big restriction on the Elephants' freedom of movement. I am guessing this is one of the reasons why they can cause so much damage to the crops of local farmers, they aren't really fenced inside the game reserve properly. Targeting the elephants outside the park does more to alleviate the farmers' immediate problem, but its the same population of elephants (in the broad sense, not the herd sense) inside and outside the park.

32 points by adamnemecek 8y ago

Can anyone explain sport/trophy hunting to me? I can't imagine looking through a scope knowing you're about to end an animals life for "fun" without the thought of it's pain, social bonds or right to exist stopping you from pulling the trigger.

bpicolo 8y ago
FWIW, this isn't about trophy hunting at all. > Mr Guma said smallholder farmers living along the Botswana/Zimbabwe border fence had struggled for years with elephants that regularly invaded their land and destroyed their crop It's because elephants are currently causing actual problems for rural citizens of Botswana.
whiddershins 8y ago
There’s a great Joe Rogan podcast with a bow hunter, and Joe spends a lot of time explaining why trophy hunting can be great. It funds conservation, which decreases poaching, which is better for literally everyone involved including the animals and the poachers. I believe it also tends to be very controlled and directed so the effects can be planned. Elephants can be a huge, dangerous, nuisance (apparently) to farmers who are trying to have enough food to eat. That’s just one example.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  The benefits are greatly exaggerated https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-h... The money doesn't end up where it should and the oversight is minimal.
monort 8y ago
How would you answer the same question from a vegetarian? We eat meat for "fun" too, though we would be able to survive on plants. The answer is that most people don't care about animal suffering.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I don't eat meat for fun. I eat meat because I like it and humans are omnivores. That said I try to reduce meat consumption and I buy as clean as possible. Organic makes sense when it comes to meat because of animal welfare and because it tastes much better. I also eat "lesser" parts and I love offal. I believe that when we kill an animal for food we should eat everything and not just the filets and entrecotes. I agree with you that mass meat production is an atrocity and one of the biggest moral human failings. There are alternatives, but they don't scale and are obviously more expensive. If factory meat becomes the only available option I'm out.
  - lgessler 8y ago
    > I eat meat because I like it and humans are omnivores. The "humans are omnivores" appeal, I think you'd agree, commits the naturalistic fallacy. There are things humans can do, and you might even argue were "designed" to do, that nevertheless we condemn as wrong, like killing, stealing, and using physical abuse to have one's way. Perhaps by "humans are omnivores" you meant that it's more difficult to eat healthy without animal products, which is undoubtedly true, but nothing out of reach or even especially difficult for everyone above a certain socioeconomic status. If you agree that that part's gone, all that remains is "I like it".
  - eric_h 8y ago
    > If factory meat becomes the only available option I'm out. I agree but I'd like to add a disambiguation. Factory farmed meat should be stopped, factory produced meat (i.e. with no live animals as inputs) would be pretty great.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
bluGill 8y ago
Can you explain any of your weird habits to me? Why do you spend hours staring at a screen watching a fiction? Why do you defile your body with tattoos? Why do you use an alarm clock to wake up? Why do you not worship my God? Why do you not eat dog meat? Of course I just picked some at random. I more or less ordered them from things your probably do to things you probably do not. Yet all are things that I can find somebody in the world who will think you are strange. The point is who are you to pass judgement on the likes/dislikes of others. This is a large world and it is very hard to find objective answers for likes.
- everdev 8y ago
  I think the difference is when your action impacts the existence of another conscious being, it's no longer just about you. Your examples seem like personal choices, but in the hunting example, there are two conscious parties (the hunter and the animal) and both are required to be present for the action to occur (the kill), but only one party is consenting (the hunter). If animals spoke in the hunter's native language we'd probably stop hunting or killing them because they could adequately express their fear and anger at being killed against their will. As it is, their running away and animal noises fall on deaf ears. And yes, I don't eat dog meat (or any meat) for this reason.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    You are now showing your values though. They are not the values of the hunter. The hunter does not understand your separation. You will never understand each other because there is a fundamental difference.

adamnemecek 8y ago

You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these 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 them 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][6]. [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] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=318 http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp... [6] http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb

vibrio 8y ago
Yes, this. FYI: Charity Navigator gives the David Sheldrick trust a great (4of4 Stars) rating. Alas, the IAPF receives too little revenue to be rated, but is clearly a great organization and cause.
RIMR 8y ago
If the ban is lifted, donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation wouldn't accomplish much, since none of the elephant hunting would be illegal... There's also an elephant population problem in Botswana, so as sad is it may be, these measures are necessary.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  Poaching goes on regardless of legal status. Also they work in other places besides Botswana.
8y ago

klaasvakie 8y ago

It's about time Botswana did something about their elephant numbers. Chobe is practically overrun with elephants, and until now, the government seemed unwilling to keep the numbers under control. If they can raise money for conservation by combining their culling activities with trophy hunting I think it is a win for everybody. This can turn a pure cost-centre into a revenue generating activity with the income applied to other desperately underfunded efforts like Rhino conservation. I support hunting for food, but don't support trophy hunting unless it is part of a culling program or part of removing problem animals.

undersuit 8y ago
I question whether Botswana needs to kill their elephants, especially as reports have Botswana containing 1/3 of the entire African Elephant population. >Chobe is practically overrun with elephants And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas. I like the final line of the article: >Mr Guma therefore said government should swiftly act on how best to resolve the human/wildlife conflict and that the lift on the hunting ban and shooting of elephants in areas not designated as game reserves could be remedial to the crisis.
- klaasvakie 8y ago
  > I question whether Botswana needs to kill their elephants, especially as reports have Botswana containing 1/3 of the entire African Elephant population. Obviously killing elephants (any animal really) in large numbers is a big problem on many levels. Transporting elephants is also difficult and expensive, and more importantly you need someplace to put them. Most of the other big game reserves in Southern Africa also have problems keeping their elephant numbers in check. Where would you take them? > And the proposed law will not fix that, hunting would only be allowed outside preservation areas. I haven't been up there in a couple of years, but the fencing around Chobe is spotty at best, the entire riverfront is unfenced (at least the part you get to see as a visitor), so I don't think there is really a big restriction on the Elephants' freedom of movement. I am guessing this is one of the reasons why they can cause so much damage to the crops of local farmers, they aren't really fenced inside the game reserve properly. Targeting the elephants outside the park does more to alleviate the farmers' immediate problem, but its the same population of elephants (in the broad sense, not the herd sense) inside and outside the park.