3 ms·

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 proble

by 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.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - riffraff 16y ago
    I believe that your connection of the tragedy of the commons with this specific story may be wrong. I recall Zimbabwe is one of the countries that more or less _privatized_ elephants, and the owners of private hunting parks do not treat them at all as an infinitely renewable resource, exactly like a cow farmer doesn't. They don't have interest in over hunting, on the contrary their profit depends on having a healthy and stable population. I am not qualified enough to judge the long term effects, but Zimbabwe has had a stable/growing population of elephants for more than twenty years now. While I don't like big animals hunting, I'd say this shows a completely different outlook from the one you refer to.
  - scythe 16y ago
    Even the Republicans don't grease their slopes this much. One guy killing one elephant for the sake of a minor and frankly uninteresting publicity stunt (and this guy being part of a small minority of company owners capable of doing this, since shareholders would never approve) does not ipso facto lead to a bunch of rich sport-hunters decimating the wildlife population of Africa as a revival of some sort of primal hunting instinct. That's absolutely absurd. I seem to recall this show back in the day called the "Crocodile Hunter" featuring the contest of a human with an endangered species in waaaaay more glorified terms than this.
wakeboarder3780 16y ago
>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 This is not a commercial big game hunt. >It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing. >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 So the fact he took video of it then means he's making a spectacle of himself? He's just trying to record something good he was doing. >Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. Neither of these commodities went anywhere except with the surrounding villagers. >The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem. Because it's not a problem, nothing was taken. >Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. You were objectively being an unprofessional, emotional twat. >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. Mindless to who? You. Your entire rant that i've read is 100% mindless to me. Your opinion of what's mindless is just that - opinion, and it's subjective. Since you hate mindless responses I'll assume you think your response is mindful. I find this interesting seeing as how the majority of your post is about "jabbing" people and speaking emotionally.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- elliottcarlson 16y ago
  >>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic >This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing. Though it might be arguable that the hunt organizers/tour guides were profit seeking. Guiding someone to a place where they can shoot an animal for fun (with the guise of doing good) will bring them some money. Sure, it could have been beneficial to the community to rid a problem elephant and give the villagers additional meat - but Bob's desire to shoot something is doubtfully meant to be for the good will of the community and more so to fill his own desires of killing something.

by alexqgb 16y ago

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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- riffraff 16y ago
  I believe that your connection of the tragedy of the commons with this specific story may be wrong. I recall Zimbabwe is one of the countries that more or less _privatized_ elephants, and the owners of private hunting parks do not treat them at all as an infinitely renewable resource, exactly like a cow farmer doesn't. They don't have interest in over hunting, on the contrary their profit depends on having a healthy and stable population. I am not qualified enough to judge the long term effects, but Zimbabwe has had a stable/growing population of elephants for more than twenty years now. While I don't like big animals hunting, I'd say this shows a completely different outlook from the one you refer to.
- scythe 16y ago
  Even the Republicans don't grease their slopes this much. One guy killing one elephant for the sake of a minor and frankly uninteresting publicity stunt (and this guy being part of a small minority of company owners capable of doing this, since shareholders would never approve) does not ipso facto lead to a bunch of rich sport-hunters decimating the wildlife population of Africa as a revival of some sort of primal hunting instinct. That's absolutely absurd. I seem to recall this show back in the day called the "Crocodile Hunter" featuring the contest of a human with an endangered species in waaaaay more glorified terms than this.

wakeboarder3780 16y ago

>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 This is not a commercial big game hunt. >It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing. >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 So the fact he took video of it then means he's making a spectacle of himself? He's just trying to record something good he was doing. >Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. Neither of these commodities went anywhere except with the surrounding villagers. >The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem. Because it's not a problem, nothing was taken. >Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. You were objectively being an unprofessional, emotional twat. >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. Mindless to who? You. Your entire rant that i've read is 100% mindless to me. Your opinion of what's mindless is just that - opinion, and it's subjective. Since you hate mindless responses I'll assume you think your response is mindful. I find this interesting seeing as how the majority of your post is about "jabbing" people and speaking emotionally.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
elliottcarlson 16y ago
>>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic >This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing. Though it might be arguable that the hunt organizers/tour guides were profit seeking. Guiding someone to a place where they can shoot an animal for fun (with the guise of doing good) will bring them some money. Sure, it could have been beneficial to the community to rid a problem elephant and give the villagers additional meat - but Bob's desire to shoot something is doubtfully meant to be for the good will of the community and more so to fill his own desires of killing something.