"Rhino Poacher Killed By Elephant And Eaten By Lions" Topic

link

Karma.

Teamwork.

Hope the lions are OK poachers are usually very greasy and oily which may harm their digestive systems

This made me laugh. I'm a bad, bad person.

Aw gee. That's too bad.

While I see the need to protect endangered species, it seems that the viewpoint has returned to that of the days when taking the King's deer was a capital crime…

I think you're reading too much into the responses.

Clearly all hunters shouldn't be killed but hunting, as an anachronistic and inappropriate pastime should be outlawed.

Hunting has no place in the 21st century. These hunters got their just deserts.

It amuses me how people who live in First World nations can so glibly make statements like "hunting has no place in the 21st Century." That is a statement that only someone with more food, shelter, clothing and security than they need can make. There are still millions of people on the globe for whom hunting is essential to their food supply-- and if you include fishing as equivalently the same (and it is), that number increases to billions. For that matter, there is absolutely no moral difference between killing a pig in a farm and shooting a deer in a forest. And that works whether you believe that eating meat is a-ok or are a fanatical member of PETA. For that matter, there are in many environments invasive, destructive species which are grossly harmful to the environment as well as human property for which the only solution is hunting. Among these in North American alone are feral pigs (look it up), coyotes, and non-native snakes. On top of that, species like deer, etc., currently have few if any native predators remaining, and will quickly reach starvation-level population levels (not to mention the risks of pandemic disease status, some transferable to humans). The only method of controlling these populations is hunting. (Plus, venison tastes pretty good.) In any case, "hunting" and "poaching" are not synonymous, nor morally equivalent. One is merely an activity; the other is a violation of law. (Whether that law is always predicated on a valid reason is a different issue.)

Obviously, this is not the case in the current poaching story. Rhinoceroses are neither invasive or overpopulated, but in great danger of extinction. Nor are they sources for food, clothing, or shelter. Thus, laws protecting them strike this well-fed First World individual as correct. The cause of their hunting, however, isn't sport. It's the (idiotic) belief among certain ignorant cultures that rhinoceros horn is an aphrodisiac, merely because the dang thing vaguely resembles the male sex organ. So if you want to blame someone, blame the Chinese. However, the linked to article also notes that the dead poacher "is mourned by two daughters," which to me indicates that another consideration is in place. I suspect we have a man unable to earn a living to provide for his family, who decided that his need to feed his children exceeded the need (of the wealthy, well-fed First World) to preserve a rhinoceros. Maybe he was just a greedy, self-serving bastard who deserved to be crushed by an elephant (I agree many such poachers exist), but maybe in this case, he wasn't.

I disagree.

Another good post Parzival.

As to hunting, in the US at least is is fees from hunting and fishing that support the conservation of both game and non-game species.

In Africa managed hunting fees are used for conservation and much of the meat is given to the local villagers. Additionally when the fees for from licensed hunts are more than the potential profit from poaching the incentive for poaching is reduced.

"I disagree."

With what? Can you make a logical argument in support of your position, or not?

I disagree with all that you wrote. You're premise is flawed.

Not enough of an argument. "Your premise is flawed," is merely a claim. You've failed to substantiate it with example, evidence, or logic. Therefore my reply can simply be "No it isn't," which only serves to cue a Monty Python sketch.

I agree with Ochoin

Which means nothing.

Come on— back your point up. State why my premise is flawed. Give evidence, or logic, or if not these, at least some skilled rhetorical flourishes.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." -Carl Sandburg

I think Parzival looked at a couple of different perspectives, some about the misuse of a rare thing, some about why someone was driven to do it. I don't think there is one premise. So I really have no idea with what ochoin or Space Monkey think is flawed.

andy

From the information I can gather the people (non-locals) that supply the consumer pay locals that know the area to do their tracking, killing and collecting. A single rhino horn can be a life and death difference to some local tribesmen and their families.

Jihadists are getting into the action too as a way to raise money. In fact, some NGO's have been hiring former Spec Ops guys to consult with the local antipoaching units and collect intel to go up the supply food chain.
link

For some areas of Africa one of their only means of income is tourist hunting:
link

It's big business in the US with jobs and recreation. If not for the hunting fees and no civilian hunters the taxpayer would need to foot the bill and fire professional hunters.
link

Humans have replaced the natural apex predators in nature. It's our responsibility to keep the Circle of Life in balance. So don't feel bad when you hit a deer. In fact, now in California, you can gather up your roadkill and grill it.

Wolfhag

Not sure,but I think there was a "Far Side" strip that dealt with that.