4 ms·

Pro Tip: Actual dissent requires being on-topic. And that means paying enough attention to know what the topic actually is. Had you actually read the OP, you'd

by alexqgb 16y ago

Pro Tip: Actual dissent requires being on-topic. And that means paying enough attention to know what the topic actually is. Had you actually read the OP, you'd have understood that the crux of the criticism has to do with mindless participation in an obviously bad system. That is, a system that turns a necessary but easily abused task into a profit center - thereby ensuring that it will be stretched to utterly unnecessary proportions. It had nothing to do with hunting in general, or being a vegetarian in particular. For the record, there's (a lot) more to the issue than a few meals. Even in the limited areas where elephant populations are not highly endangered, there's still substantial controversy around any practice that allows the ivory market to legitimately revive itself, since it not only provides cover for black-market ivory, it also fuels the kind of demand that leads to increased poaching in places where elephants remain truly endangered. You should also know that what you saw on that video is the exception, not the rule. In the all-too-common cases where elephants are killed illegally, any stray documentary crews would also be killed, with all the bodies left to rot. The same goes for rhinos, tigers, and other magnificent creatures unfortunate enough to have one or two body parts valuable only to chronically egotistical douchebags. Assuming that being thoughtful enough to read isn't too much trouble, you can start to educate yourself by considering this: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephants/african_elephant.php http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephant...

d2 16y ago
Parsons hunting Leopard in Zimbabwe in 2009 with some propaganda at the start of the video on why killing leopard is a good thing: http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not converted to Zim dollars and spent on the local economy.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Upvoted for pointing out that any marginal program promoted by Zimbabwean officials citing "benefits to the local economy" is utter bullshit. If any of those officials actually cared about the local economy (or actually intended to let the money reach it), they wouldn't have demolished those economies with their utterly unrestrained corruption and graft. Honestly, believing propaganda like that makes you look as naive as the people who believe that the wives of abusive husbands "just happen to keep falling down the stairs."
- mukyu 16y ago
  Zimbabwe got rid of their local currency 2 years ago. Clearly since it does not exist their money was not converted to it.
ihodes 16y ago
You can reply without being offensive. You could also save time by not prefacing some of your sentences with insults. Come on, uncool. Additionally, the article you linked says (among other pros and cons) Some countries, including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia, had been able to manage their elephant populations and claimed that increased populations were causing increased agricultural losses, decreased revenue from hunting and increased conflicts between elephants and local residents. Which is something you ignore in your arguments. Did you happen to miss that part in the page you linked? The money these countries get from allowing safaris does pay for the parks they preserve. The few animals killed (legally) do not have a significant impact on the population as a whole, and I'd argue have a significant positive impact on the parks as a whole. Thanks for the perspective, though.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it). The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover to ivory gathered illegally. Not only does that cover serve sellers with ivory in the market, it also applies to ivory in the possession of buyers who can more easily deflect the (totally justified) social stigma that was slowly starting to attach itself to the stuff. It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic, and where responsible stewardship demands a more disinterested handling. The "glory" of big game hunting (and, specifically, its packaging for sale) is one of the prime reasons that many populations got endangered in the first place. Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local. Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem. Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.

by alexqgb 16y ago

d2 16y ago

Parsons hunting Leopard in Zimbabwe in 2009 with some propaganda at the start of the video on why killing leopard is a good thing: http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not converted to Zim dollars and spent on the local economy.

alexqgb 16y ago
Upvoted for pointing out that any marginal program promoted by Zimbabwean officials citing "benefits to the local economy" is utter bullshit. If any of those officials actually cared about the local economy (or actually intended to let the money reach it), they wouldn't have demolished those economies with their utterly unrestrained corruption and graft. Honestly, believing propaganda like that makes you look as naive as the people who believe that the wives of abusive husbands "just happen to keep falling down the stairs."
mukyu 16y ago
Zimbabwe got rid of their local currency 2 years ago. Clearly since it does not exist their money was not converted to it.

ihodes 16y ago

You can reply without being offensive. You could also save time by not prefacing some of your sentences with insults. Come on, uncool. Additionally, the article you linked says (among other pros and cons) Some countries, including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia, had been able to manage their elephant populations and claimed that increased populations were causing increased agricultural losses, decreased revenue from hunting and increased conflicts between elephants and local residents. Which is something you ignore in your arguments. Did you happen to miss that part in the page you linked? The money these countries get from allowing safaris does pay for the parks they preserve. The few animals killed (legally) do not have a significant impact on the population as a whole, and I'd argue have a significant positive impact on the parks as a whole. Thanks for the perspective, though.

alexqgb 16y ago
I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it). The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover to ivory gathered illegally. Not only does that cover serve sellers with ivory in the market, it also applies to ivory in the possession of buyers who can more easily deflect the (totally justified) social stigma that was slowly starting to attach itself to the stuff. It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic, and where responsible stewardship demands a more disinterested handling. The "glory" of big game hunting (and, specifically, its packaging for sale) is one of the prime reasons that many populations got endangered in the first place. Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local. Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem. Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.