4 ms·

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 artic

by 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.
- Travis 16y ago
  Seems to me like it would be much more reasonable to blame the poachers and the systems that allow poaching versus one man who legally killed an animal. An animal that was going to be destroyed anyways. In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great white hunter line) seems a little out there. Do you have any evidence that the legal killing, in this manner, actually has any affect on wildlife populations? Any reason to think that it actually does provide cover (data reasons rather than anecdotes)? Again, it's not something that I would do, or even something that I approve. But to say that it's wrong, seems uncalled for. Then again, I also wouldn't use large breasted woman as the focus on my domain name sales company. Also, I hate godaddy for how horrible their interface is. They have made major strides in their DNS hosting, which is all I'll use it for anymore.
  - alexqgb 16y ago
    There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage. Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution. The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildlife as being worth more dead than alive. The thing supporting this view is a larger (and hugely problematic) outlook that views the Earth as an infinitely renewable resource, and only acknowledges financial limits when it comes to one's own consumption. The good news is that a growing number of people look at this guy's 'adventure' and think "ick". Though you may not share that sense of moral revulsion, please be aware that it reflects an instinct that you and any kids you may have will ultimately benefit from.
    - Travis 16y ago
      You seem a lot more comfortable telling other people what they ought to do than I am.

by ihodes 16y ago

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.

Travis 16y ago
Seems to me like it would be much more reasonable to blame the poachers and the systems that allow poaching versus one man who legally killed an animal. An animal that was going to be destroyed anyways. In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great white hunter line) seems a little out there. Do you have any evidence that the legal killing, in this manner, actually has any affect on wildlife populations? Any reason to think that it actually does provide cover (data reasons rather than anecdotes)? Again, it's not something that I would do, or even something that I approve. But to say that it's wrong, seems uncalled for. Then again, I also wouldn't use large breasted woman as the focus on my domain name sales company. Also, I hate godaddy for how horrible their interface is. They have made major strides in their DNS hosting, which is all I'll use it for anymore.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage. Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution. The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildlife as being worth more dead than alive. The thing supporting this view is a larger (and hugely problematic) outlook that views the Earth as an infinitely renewable resource, and only acknowledges financial limits when it comes to one's own consumption. The good news is that a growing number of people look at this guy's 'adventure' and think "ick". Though you may not share that sense of moral revulsion, please be aware that it reflects an instinct that you and any kids you may have will ultimately benefit from.
  - Travis 16y ago
    You seem a lot more comfortable telling other people what they ought to do than I am.