Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/05/24 13:49:17
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
2017/05/24 14:02:26
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, one is different than the others. One is making a difference that helps an endangered species.
Trophy hunting isn't my thing usually. I hunt to kill varmints or feed myself. If I were to bag an unusually large buck, I may mount the head, but it's not my primary purpose.
I don't like trophy hunting, but I don't knock it either. It's legal, it's supporting local peoples, and it is helping the species itself.
In the case of rhinos in particular, the target is chosen by the government/park ranger/etc., not the hunter. This animal is usually all ready targeted for termination whether someone is paying or not. The thing is, when male rhinos get old, their fertility drops, but they become territorial a-holes. Although they can't breed themselves they will prevent younger males from breeding, sometimes to the point of killing younger males. In cases like this terminating an animal helps the species. Why not throw $300,000 into the local community while they are at it?
This is one of the great canards to the whole "Trophy Hunting helps Species/Conservation/Communites" spin. I said it in my post before and I'll say it again, it's nothing but bs that I've been hearing for 40 years and it's as false now as it was when it was first spun to put an acceptable face on taking animals solely for trophy purposes.
As far as the "The money goes to local communities."/"It helps conservation efforts." lies: Of the roughly $200m a year that is paid for Trophy Hunting in Africa, less than 3% goes to local communities and the amount allocated to conservation efforts is negligible. Most of the money goes to middlemen, corporations and governments. Lies. Trophy hunting makes up only about 1.8% of tourism income in Africa. The vast majority of tourists to Africa come for non-lethal appreciation of the wildlife and the activities of that paltry 2% actually contributes to depletion of the reason that generates the other 98% of that tourism income...great business plan! Real life example? Botswana essentially banned game hunting in 2014 after comparing the costs of game hunting with the income generated by photo/nonlethal tourism: The photo tourism season is longer, makes better use of the wildlife and employs vastly more locals. In it's first year of the ban, over $344m was generated from nonlethal tourism.
A previous poster tried to brush this post off as just a "Hunting bad, err." thread, but it couldn't be further from the truth. I hunt, I eat what I kill, but taking wildlife for trophy purposes is just fundamentally wrong and makes no economic or conservation sense when held up to the light of fact.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. If you want to be angry about trophy hunting then be mad at the authorities that allow it and offer people the opportunity to buy trophy tags. Nobody was breaking the law on this elephant hunt, it was all legal and approved by the Zimbabwe authorities. If the people in charge of protecting the elephants think it's ok to sell elephant tags then why are you mad at the people who buy them? If you're disappointed in how Zimbabwe spends the money it collects from selling tags to big game hunters then why are you blaming the hunters? It's Zimbabwe's fault that they don't make smarter decisions regarding the spending of trophy hunting money collected from hunters.
Nitpicking about trophy hunting is silly. Nobody uses the whole animal they kill and nobody packs the entire carcass home with them. Whether you kill an elk and just mount the head in your living room or eat some of it or eat most of it the animal is still just as dead. I honestly don't care what animals hunters kill or what they do with the carcasses as long as they're legally obtaining tags/licenses and aren't poaching.
Ahh, the old "It's legal, so what's the big deal." response. That just washes it clean, I suppose? Do you have any sense of history and how what was legal in very recent years is now viewed with disgust and disbelief in current light? Yeah, so much for that quick washing of the hands. When something is wrong it stinks. Trophy hunting...the taking of a life for purposes of pure sport...stinks. The non-starter "arguments" to the contrary are lies and have been proven such. If all you've got to distinguish right from wrong is whether there's a law on the books then your perspective has serious, glaring limitations.
Your personal opinion of trophy hunting doesn't qualify as some absolute truth or make your arbitrary viewpoint unassailable. The fact that not everyone hunts the way you think is the proper way to hunt doesn't make it wrong or bad or immoral or unethical. Me killing a deer and packing off some meat or me killing an elk and taking the head as a trophy or me killing an elephant it's all just slightly different versions of the same activity. You need to step back from your myopic condemnation of others. How dare those dirty evil trophy hunters not hunt in accordance to your personal views. They're just subhuman scum and we should all join you in gloating and basking in the schadenfreude anytime someone who trophy hunts dies. The dead guy, he hunted wrong so good riddance his kids are better off without him.
Your personal disapproval of an activity doesn't mean it's some terrible evil that needs to be expunged from the world. Chill.
My personal disapproval can, and will, be voiced as I see fit. Don't care for a passionate response to something? I honestly couldn't care less if I tried.
I never stated that you couldn't voice your disapproval as you see fit. Just suggested that you might want to consider not dehumanizing people for being different. I sincerely hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's disdain and demonization simply because the manner in which you pursue a hobby is wrong in their eyes. We live in the society of our own creation so it's worth the time it takes to reflect on what we put into it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/24 14:07:47
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/05/24 14:02:48
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
No, there are clearly posts in this thread celebrating the death of the hunter. That is not on me.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2017/05/24 14:07:22
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
No, there are clearly posts in this thread celebrating the death of the hunter. That is not on me.
True, but it's not an either/or "celebration" over that of an animal, just observatory in light of his occupation and the circumstances of his demise.
2017/05/24 14:07:22
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
It can't be karmic without involving morality now can it? If it's karmic justice that an elephant hunter is killed by the elephant that was shot did then it's implicit in that line of reasoning that going on a hunt to kill the elephant in the first place created a negative karmic impact on the hunters. Karmic justice means he got what he deserved and that ascribes to you a value judgement that the elephant hunter deserved to die for his actions.
Ironic, yes, because you rarely expect to have to tell somebody's family that Johnny didn't make it back from the hunt because the mule deer got him or that the bass hauled Bobby out of the boat into the water and ate him so having the hunter killed by the elephant is ironic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/24 14:08:16
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/05/24 14:10:39
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
It can't be karmic without involving morality now can it? If it's karmic justice that an elephant hunter is killed by the elephant that was shot did then it's implicit in that line of reasoning that going on a hunt to kill the elephant in the first place created a negative karmic impact on the hunters. Karmic justice means he got what he deserved and that ascribes to you a value judgement that the elephant hunter deserved to die for his actions.
Ironic, yes, because you rarely expect to have to tell somebody's family that Johnny didn't make it back from the hunt because the mule deer got him or that the bass hauled Bobby out of the boat into the water and ate him so having the hunter killed by the elephant is ironic.
Please take in all the words being used. I said it wasn't a "moral either/or"...not that there wasn't a morality involved. Really, if you want to tilt that badly, fine, let's go, but at least be thorough in your understanding of what I'm posting and don't read your own position into it.
2017/05/24 14:25:35
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
Let's just get some perspective on all this. A guy died doing a legal activitiy that has a scientific concensus as being an ecological good. You may very well feel he was a donkey cave, but to laugh at this death is a bit morbid.
May as well be cracking jokes about the kids that died at the Ariana Grande concert.
2017/05/24 14:25:55
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
No, not over. People are celebrating (well, seems quite hyperbolic to me to call this celebration, but everyone knows HYPERBOLE IS THE BEST THING EVAR§§§§§) the loss of a human life, period.
I would be the first to acknowledge I value a human life over the life of a non-human animal, and would sacrifice the animal life to save the human life. But that wasn't what was happening here. It wasn't a question of having to sacrifice either a human life or a non-human life. That guy was not in a life or death situation. He just thought it was pretty awesome to kill some animals for fun, despite having no incentive to, until he was killed by an animal he was trying to kill. Uh uh . Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that .
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2017/05/24 14:29:00
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, one is different than the others. One is making a difference that helps an endangered species.
Trophy hunting isn't my thing usually. I hunt to kill varmints or feed myself. If I were to bag an unusually large buck, I may mount the head, but it's not my primary purpose.
I don't like trophy hunting, but I don't knock it either. It's legal, it's supporting local peoples, and it is helping the species itself.
In the case of rhinos in particular, the target is chosen by the government/park ranger/etc., not the hunter. This animal is usually all ready targeted for termination whether someone is paying or not. The thing is, when male rhinos get old, their fertility drops, but they become territorial a-holes. Although they can't breed themselves they will prevent younger males from breeding, sometimes to the point of killing younger males. In cases like this terminating an animal helps the species. Why not throw $300,000 into the local community while they are at it?
This is one of the great canards to the whole "Trophy Hunting helps Species/Conservation/Communites" spin. I said it in my post before and I'll say it again, it's nothing but bs that I've been hearing for 40 years and it's as false now as it was when it was first spun to put an acceptable face on taking animals solely for trophy purposes.
As far as the "The money goes to local communities."/"It helps conservation efforts." lies: Of the roughly $200m a year that is paid for Trophy Hunting in Africa, less than 3% goes to local communities and the amount allocated to conservation efforts is negligible. Most of the money goes to middlemen, corporations and governments. Lies. Trophy hunting makes up only about 1.8% of tourism income in Africa. The vast majority of tourists to Africa come for non-lethal appreciation of the wildlife and the activities of that paltry 2% actually contributes to depletion of the reason that generates the other 98% of that tourism income...great business plan! Real life example? Botswana essentially banned game hunting in 2014 after comparing the costs of game hunting with the income generated by photo/nonlethal tourism: The photo tourism season is longer, makes better use of the wildlife and employs vastly more locals. In it's first year of the ban, over $344m was generated from nonlethal tourism.
A previous poster tried to brush this post off as just a "Hunting bad, err." thread, but it couldn't be further from the truth. I hunt, I eat what I kill, but taking wildlife for trophy purposes is just fundamentally wrong and makes no economic or conservation sense when held up to the light of fact.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. If you want to be angry about trophy hunting then be mad at the authorities that allow it and offer people the opportunity to buy trophy tags. Nobody was breaking the law on this elephant hunt, it was all legal and approved by the Zimbabwe authorities. If the people in charge of protecting the elephants think it's ok to sell elephant tags then why are you mad at the people who buy them? If you're disappointed in how Zimbabwe spends the money it collects from selling tags to big game hunters then why are you blaming the hunters? It's Zimbabwe's fault that they don't make smarter decisions regarding the spending of trophy hunting money collected from hunters.
Nitpicking about trophy hunting is silly. Nobody uses the whole animal they kill and nobody packs the entire carcass home with them. Whether you kill an elk and just mount the head in your living room or eat some of it or eat most of it the animal is still just as dead. I honestly don't care what animals hunters kill or what they do with the carcasses as long as they're legally obtaining tags/licenses and aren't poaching.
Ahh, the old "It's legal, so what's the big deal." response. That just washes it clean, I suppose? Do you have any sense of history and how what was legal in very recent years is now viewed with disgust and disbelief in current light? Yeah, so much for that quick washing of the hands. When something is wrong it stinks. Trophy hunting...the taking of a life for purposes of pure sport...stinks. The non-starter "arguments" to the contrary are lies and have been proven such. If all you've got to distinguish right from wrong is whether there's a law on the books then your perspective has serious, glaring limitations.
Your personal opinion of trophy hunting doesn't qualify as some absolute truth or make your arbitrary viewpoint unassailable. The fact that not everyone hunts the way you think is the proper way to hunt doesn't make it wrong or bad or immoral or unethical. Me killing a deer and packing off some meat or me killing an elk and taking the head as a trophy or me killing an elephant it's all just slightly different versions of the same activity. You need to step back from your myopic condemnation of others. How dare those dirty evil trophy hunters not hunt in accordance to your personal views. They're just subhuman scum and we should all join you in gloating and basking in the schadenfreude anytime someone who trophy hunts dies. The dead guy, he hunted wrong so good riddance his kids are better off without him.
Your personal disapproval of an activity doesn't mean it's some terrible evil that needs to be expunged from the world. Chill.
My personal disapproval can, and will, be voiced as I see fit. Don't care for a passionate response to something? I honestly couldn't care less if I tried.
PJ: I never stated that you couldn't voice your disapproval as you see fit. Just suggested that you might want to consider not dehumanizing people for being different. I sincerely hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's disdain and demonization simply because the manner in which you pursue a hobby is wrong in their eyes. We live in the society of our own creation so it's worth the time it takes to reflect on what we put into it.
BW: No actually that's something you've thrown at me a couple times in this thread. If you want to simplify my response to something I find reprehensible as being a dehumanizing attack purely because someone is different, that's your prerogative. It's wrong, but it's your opinion. Some activities, actions, etc. draw varying responses from people, surely you can understand this. This matter, for me, is one of those things. Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement and sport, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/24 14:33:47
2017/05/24 14:29:39
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: May as well be cracking jokes about the kids that died at the Ariana Grande concert.
I fail to see how the comparison is supposed to work. Those kids weren't trying to kill anything, were they? I would be very interested to learn how you could present the situation as the bomber acting in self-defense. On the other hand, the elephant was definitely acting in self-defense .
Frankly that comparison is highly insulting to all those who died or were injured in the Ariana Grande concert!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2017/05/24 14:30:53
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
It can't be karmic without involving morality now can it? If it's karmic justice that an elephant hunter is killed by the elephant that was shot did then it's implicit in that line of reasoning that going on a hunt to kill the elephant in the first place created a negative karmic impact on the hunters. Karmic justice means he got what he deserved and that ascribes to you a value judgement that the elephant hunter deserved to die for his actions.
Ironic, yes, because you rarely expect to have to tell somebody's family that Johnny didn't make it back from the hunt because the mule deer got him or that the bass hauled Bobby out of the boat into the water and ate him so having the hunter killed by the elephant is ironic.
Please take in all the words being used. I said it wasn't a "moral either/or"...not that there wasn't a morality involved. Really, if you want to tilt that badly, fine, let's go, but at least be thorough in your understanding of what I'm posting and don't read your own position into it.
If you believe it was karmic revenger then you've already declared it to be a moral either/or. If you believe that the act of big game hunting creates a karmic deficit to the extent that hunters killed by the animals they're hunting got what they karmically deserved then you're valuing the animal above the person. The dead hunter in question deserved to die because he built up bad karma by leading big game hunts in Africa. If you believe that the hunter deserved to die for hunting elephants then you have indeed placed a higher value on the animal's life than the human's.
If you had said something akin to "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" I would have agreed with you but if you're going to take a position that he got what he deserved I'm gonna ask you to slow your roll and reconsider. Personally I wouldn't pick a fight with an animal unless I was extremely confident in winning so I wouldn't feth with an animal the size of a building. Big game hunting is dangerous because big game animals are dangerous. Hunting lions, tigers, elephants, moose etc. is far more dangerous than going after ducks or turkeys or deer. The hunter knew the risks and chose to lead elephant hunts anyway so this is a case of live by the sword die by the sword but I'm not going to devalue his personhood just because he chose to be a big game hunter. Being a big game hunter is a bad choice for me personally but that doesn't mean that other people who decide it's a good choice for them are bad people.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/05/24 14:36:32
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
Prestor Jon wrote: Being a big game hunter is a bad choice for me personally but that doesn't mean that other people who decide it's a good choice for them are bad people.
No, indeed. It being a bad choice for you doesn't mean naught. But hunting being all about deriving joy from inflicting suffering and death will definitely not paint them in a good light. And the many efforts to hide what hunting is about under nice euphemism like it being just “being different”, or “a completely legal hobby” or any other way to avoid mentioning the parts people have problem with won't change that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/24 14:37:20
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2017/05/24 14:37:16
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
BigWaaagh wrote: [ Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement and sport, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
You are free to your feelings, but at least try to be factual. He was helping the the protection of this species, not the "decimation". Try to not ignore the scientific consensus.
2017/05/24 14:41:05
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
CptJake wrote: I find it interesting folks are celebrating the loss of a human life over that of an animal.
Interesting perspective.
It's really not one over the other, though, now is it? It started as an observation in irony and Karmic revenge. If you want to make it into a moral either/or, then it's on you I'm afraid.
It can't be karmic without involving morality now can it? If it's karmic justice that an elephant hunter is killed by the elephant that was shot did then it's implicit in that line of reasoning that going on a hunt to kill the elephant in the first place created a negative karmic impact on the hunters. Karmic justice means he got what he deserved and that ascribes to you a value judgement that the elephant hunter deserved to die for his actions.
Ironic, yes, because you rarely expect to have to tell somebody's family that Johnny didn't make it back from the hunt because the mule deer got him or that the bass hauled Bobby out of the boat into the water and ate him so having the hunter killed by the elephant is ironic.
Please take in all the words being used. I said it wasn't a "moral either/or"...not that there wasn't a morality involved. Really, if you want to tilt that badly, fine, let's go, but at least be thorough in your understanding of what I'm posting and don't read your own position into it.
If you believe it was karmic revenger then you've already declared it to be a moral either/or. If you believe that the act of big game hunting creates a karmic deficit to the extent that hunters killed by the animals they're hunting got what they karmically deserved then you're valuing the animal above the person. The dead hunter in question deserved to die because he built up bad karma by leading big game hunts in Africa. If you believe that the hunter deserved to die for hunting elephants then you have indeed placed a higher value on the animal's life than the human's.
If you had said something akin to "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" I would have agreed with you but if you're going to take a position that he got what he deserved I'm gonna ask you to slow your roll and reconsider. Personally I wouldn't pick a fight with an animal unless I was extremely confident in winning so I wouldn't feth with an animal the size of a building. Big game hunting is dangerous because big game animals are dangerous. Hunting lions, tigers, elephants, moose etc. is far more dangerous than going after ducks or turkeys or deer. The hunter knew the risks and chose to lead elephant hunts anyway so this is a case of live by the sword die by the sword but I'm not going to devalue his personhood just because he chose to be a big game hunter. Being a big game hunter is a bad choice for me personally but that doesn't mean that other people who decide it's a good choice for them are bad people.
But therein lies the fault in your logic. I never said he deserved to die, did I? My statement of "Good riddance" doesn't wish ill, it simply doesn't mourn. I never said "better him than the elephant", did I? So there is no either/or. There just is this observatory instance of a seemingly Karmic balance being effected.
2017/05/24 14:41:38
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
Prestor Jon wrote: Being a big game hunter is a bad choice for me personally but that doesn't mean that other people who decide it's a good choice for them are bad people.
No, indeed. It being a bad choice for you doesn't mean naught. But hunting being all about deriving joy from inflicting suffering and death will definitely not paint them in a good light. And the many efforts to hide what hunting is about under nice euphemism like it being just “being different”, or “a completely legal hobby” or any other way to avoid mentioning the parts people have problem with won't change that.
People of all walks of life, even vegetarians, derive joy at the expense of animal life. Hunting is just a few less steps removed from the actual death. People tend to take the moral high ground against hunting while still wearing leather, eating meat, eating plat matter that came at the expense of threatened habitat, using products who's construction cuased horrific environmental damage, etc.
At least hunters are honest about it.
2017/05/24 14:42:27
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
BigWaaagh wrote: [ Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement and sport, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
You are free to your feelings, but at least try to be factual. He was helping the the protection of this species, not the "decimation". Try to not ignore the scientific consensus.
This was addressed earlier in the thread. Trophy hunting doesn't have any meaningful impact on species conservation. Some times...usually...quite the opposite.
2017/05/24 14:53:57
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: People of all walks of life, even vegetarians, derive joy at the expense of animal life.
To derive joy at the expense of animal life seems very different from deriving joy from animal suffering, doesn't it?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2017/05/24 14:55:26
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
They only have a meaningful impact if we pretend that there is no other way to cull a herd and that the person paying money is the only person able to kill if needed.
The wealthy person can donate the money, buy X pounds of meat to feet a local village for less money than they would spend on the hunt, and a local employee can manage the size of the herd. You can accomplish everything these hunts accomplish, at the same cost, with the same benefits, all without the "i get to kill an animal I always wanted to kill" aspect of it all.
If you think people should be able to kill a lion or elephant or whatever because they want to and are rich enough to do so, then argue for that. But don't hide behind "conservation" or "charity" when you can still accomplish those same goals without killing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/24 14:56:15
2017/05/24 14:55:53
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, one is different than the others. One is making a difference that helps an endangered species.
Trophy hunting isn't my thing usually. I hunt to kill varmints or feed myself. If I were to bag an unusually large buck, I may mount the head, but it's not my primary purpose.
I don't like trophy hunting, but I don't knock it either. It's legal, it's supporting local peoples, and it is helping the species itself.
In the case of rhinos in particular, the target is chosen by the government/park ranger/etc., not the hunter. This animal is usually all ready targeted for termination whether someone is paying or not. The thing is, when male rhinos get old, their fertility drops, but they become territorial a-holes. Although they can't breed themselves they will prevent younger males from breeding, sometimes to the point of killing younger males. In cases like this terminating an animal helps the species. Why not throw $300,000 into the local community while they are at it?
This is one of the great canards to the whole "Trophy Hunting helps Species/Conservation/Communites" spin. I said it in my post before and I'll say it again, it's nothing but bs that I've been hearing for 40 years and it's as false now as it was when it was first spun to put an acceptable face on taking animals solely for trophy purposes.
As far as the "The money goes to local communities."/"It helps conservation efforts." lies: Of the roughly $200m a year that is paid for Trophy Hunting in Africa, less than 3% goes to local communities and the amount allocated to conservation efforts is negligible. Most of the money goes to middlemen, corporations and governments. Lies. Trophy hunting makes up only about 1.8% of tourism income in Africa. The vast majority of tourists to Africa come for non-lethal appreciation of the wildlife and the activities of that paltry 2% actually contributes to depletion of the reason that generates the other 98% of that tourism income...great business plan! Real life example? Botswana essentially banned game hunting in 2014 after comparing the costs of game hunting with the income generated by photo/nonlethal tourism: The photo tourism season is longer, makes better use of the wildlife and employs vastly more locals. In it's first year of the ban, over $344m was generated from nonlethal tourism.
A previous poster tried to brush this post off as just a "Hunting bad, err." thread, but it couldn't be further from the truth. I hunt, I eat what I kill, but taking wildlife for trophy purposes is just fundamentally wrong and makes no economic or conservation sense when held up to the light of fact.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. If you want to be angry about trophy hunting then be mad at the authorities that allow it and offer people the opportunity to buy trophy tags. Nobody was breaking the law on this elephant hunt, it was all legal and approved by the Zimbabwe authorities. If the people in charge of protecting the elephants think it's ok to sell elephant tags then why are you mad at the people who buy them? If you're disappointed in how Zimbabwe spends the money it collects from selling tags to big game hunters then why are you blaming the hunters? It's Zimbabwe's fault that they don't make smarter decisions regarding the spending of trophy hunting money collected from hunters.
Nitpicking about trophy hunting is silly. Nobody uses the whole animal they kill and nobody packs the entire carcass home with them. Whether you kill an elk and just mount the head in your living room or eat some of it or eat most of it the animal is still just as dead. I honestly don't care what animals hunters kill or what they do with the carcasses as long as they're legally obtaining tags/licenses and aren't poaching.
Ahh, the old "It's legal, so what's the big deal." response. That just washes it clean, I suppose? Do you have any sense of history and how what was legal in very recent years is now viewed with disgust and disbelief in current light? Yeah, so much for that quick washing of the hands. When something is wrong it stinks. Trophy hunting...the taking of a life for purposes of pure sport...stinks. The non-starter "arguments" to the contrary are lies and have been proven such. If all you've got to distinguish right from wrong is whether there's a law on the books then your perspective has serious, glaring limitations.
Your personal opinion of trophy hunting doesn't qualify as some absolute truth or make your arbitrary viewpoint unassailable. The fact that not everyone hunts the way you think is the proper way to hunt doesn't make it wrong or bad or immoral or unethical. Me killing a deer and packing off some meat or me killing an elk and taking the head as a trophy or me killing an elephant it's all just slightly different versions of the same activity. You need to step back from your myopic condemnation of others. How dare those dirty evil trophy hunters not hunt in accordance to your personal views. They're just subhuman scum and we should all join you in gloating and basking in the schadenfreude anytime someone who trophy hunts dies. The dead guy, he hunted wrong so good riddance his kids are better off without him.
Your personal disapproval of an activity doesn't mean it's some terrible evil that needs to be expunged from the world. Chill.
My personal disapproval can, and will, be voiced as I see fit. Don't care for a passionate response to something? I honestly couldn't care less if I tried.
PJ: I never stated that you couldn't voice your disapproval as you see fit. Just suggested that you might want to consider not dehumanizing people for being different. I sincerely hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's disdain and demonization simply because the manner in which you pursue a hobby is wrong in their eyes. We live in the society of our own creation so it's worth the time it takes to reflect on what we put into it.
BW: No actually that's something you've thrown at me a couple times in this thread. If you want to simplify my response to something I find reprehensible as being a dehumanizing attack purely because someone is different, that's your prerogative. It's wrong, but it's your opinion. Some activities, actions, etc. draw varying responses from people, surely you can understand this. This matter, for me, is one of those things. Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
They're not hunting baby elephants or pregnant female elephants, they're hunting mature male elephants in the amount designated by the authorities in charge of safeguarding the species, the same authority that profits greatly from the continued existence of the species. These aren't poachers who are killing or capturing animals with no regard to the plight of the species and these aren't businesses that are destroying or polluting the animals' habitats these are hunters who are only taking animals that the people charged with the husbandry of the elephants deem it ok to cull. Hunting is organized culling tightly controlled by the State that will never result in the extinction of a species unless the State desires the species to become extinct. The only way elephant hunters can wipe out elephants in Zimbabwe is with the cooperation and permission of the Zimbabwe govt, the same govt that profits from the elephants continued existence.
Dude, you can disagree with big game hunting all you want. I'm never going to participate in it myself either. When you say good riddance when a big game hunter is killed by the animals he's hunting you're saying that it's an acceptable loss because since big game hunting is bad then big game hunters are bad and its no big loss to society when bad people die. That's dehumanizing people for making a choice you don't agree with. It's not unique to you by any stretch , people do it all the time. Somebody participates in a group or activity you don't approve or makes a decision you don't agree with and therefore it's easier to not care or feel schadenfreude when suffer consequences that would feel tragic if they happened to other people that are more like yourself. It's just primal tribalism that's innate to all of us. Unfortunately encountering it seems to be an unavoidable daily occurrence these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: They only have a meaningful impact if we pretend that there is no other way to cull a herd and that the person paying money is the only person able to kill if needed.
The wealthy person can donate the money, buy X pounds of meat to feet a local village for less money than they would spend on the hunt, and a local employee can manage the size of the herd. You can accomplish everything these hunts accomplish, at the same cost, with the same benefits, all without the "i get to kill an animal I always wanted to kill" aspect of it all.
If you think people should be able to kill a lion or elephant or whatever because they want to and are rich enough to do so, then argue for that. But don't hide behind "conservation" or "charity" when you can still accomplish those same goals without killing.
The State wouldn't derive revenue from hunting licenses and tags if they didn't sell them to hunters. The money can get spent however they State desires and it can even be diverted into the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats. I doubt many, if any, big game hunters would willfully engage in illegal poaching and risk being at the mercy of third world justice systems just for the sake of making a kill. African govts could end big game and trophy hunting in Africa if they wanted to do so. Take away the opportunity for wealthy hunters to get a license/tag for the animals and they'll stop hunting in Africa and go do something else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/24 15:04:07
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/05/24 15:11:01
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
cuda1179 wrote: People of all walks of life, even vegetarians, derive joy at the expense of animal life.
To derive joy at the expense of animal life seems very different from deriving joy from animal suffering, doesn't it?
A hunted animal usually suffers less from the millisecond it takes for a bullet to go through it's brain than to die from habitat loss or disruption to it's environment. A cattleyard has significantly more suffering than living in the wild until you are shot.
cuda1179 wrote: May as well be cracking jokes about the kids that died at the Ariana Grande concert.
I fail to see how the comparison is supposed to work. Those kids weren't trying to kill anything, were they? I would be very interested to learn how you could present the situation as the bomber acting in self-defense. On the other hand, the elephant was definitely acting in self-defense .
!
Okay, how about a more on point comparrison? Someone would be a total jerk if they stated A doctor that died in an abortion clinic bombing was "Karma". They'd be a jerk if they thought it wasn't worth worrying about, or that they don't feel any loss at the death. Pretty much the same thing.
BigWaaagh wrote: [ Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement and sport, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
You are free to your feelings, but at least try to be factual. He was helping the the protection of this species, not the "decimation". Try to not ignore the scientific consensus.
This was addressed earlier in the thread. Trophy hunting doesn't have any meaningful impact on species conservation. Some times...usually...quite the opposite.
Got a source for those claims? If you want sources in favor of it I can provide you with plenty.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/24 15:19:16
2017/05/24 15:20:37
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
Wheres the cientifical consensus that high thropy hunting is good for endangered species? I have read the links provided, and they provide some arguments and say some names but... I have read nothing about a "cientifical consensus" about anything.
is hard to have a cientifical consensus in other areas much less polemic, to have it in something like this with so little studies is to me a little... wanting to give your opinion more weight that it has.
And at the end of the day my opinion in all of this is so radical that I'm sure everyone here will call me names, so I'll refrain from posting it, but all comes down to that. Personal opinions. You can have the personal opinion that inflicting suffering to other sensible beings in the planet for joy is incorrect. I'll agree with that.
But theres no fundamental law that God/Jehova/ Yahveh/Allah/Buda/Zordon gived to us, mortals, with what is right and what is wrong. (Unless you believe in that, of course)
As I normally say, a human is a human only because other humans considering him that. Theres many cases in history where humans stoped being threatet as "Humans"
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/24 15:22:42
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/05/24 15:23:21
Subject: Re:Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
PJ: They're not hunting baby elephants or pregnant female elephants, they're hunting mature male elephants in the amount designated by the authorities in charge of safeguarding the species, the same authority that profits greatly from the continued existence of the species. These aren't poachers who are killing or capturing animals with no regard to the plight of the species and these aren't businesses that are destroying or polluting the animals' habitats these are hunters who are only taking animals that the people charged with the husbandry of the elephants deem it ok to cull. Hunting is organized culling tightly controlled by the State that will never result in the extinction of a species unless the State desires the species to become extinct. The only way elephant hunters can wipe out elephants in Zimbabwe is with the cooperation and permission of the Zimbabwe govt, the same govt that profits from the elephants continued existence.
BW: Firstly, there are numerous instances of these governments allowing poaching in the guise of quotas, it's common to the point of being cliché.
And yes, they're not "hunting baby elephants or pregnant female elephants" that's of no consequence. While nature picks off the weak and infirm, strengthening the species. Big Game Hunters seek out the largest and strongest members of the population. In the case of elephants, that means the largest, strongest male with the largest tusks. Killing these animals, who are the cornerstones of their herd and who play critical roles in their society, puts the rest of the family/herd at risk.
This loss of older, alpha males, leaves the herd without protection and eliminates much-needed guidance for the young male and female members of the group. This, quite often, is the reason for so-called delinquent, or rogue, elephants who invariable end up in negative interactions with humans which ends up with their being killed.
Not to mention the impact of the loss of these prime males as breeders to perpetuate the species, the loss of their potential offspring and it's impact on the species' health and longevity.
One only has to look at the undeniable fact that for the last century, with regards to elephants in particular, hunting has been the primary, if not only, means of conservation afforded the species in Africa. A simple look at the dwindling numbers of this species...several million at the turn of the last century and less than 500K now...and other trophy species, proves that trophy hunting as a means of conservation does not work. Take a picture of an animal, it survives. Shoot it, it's gone forever. That's conservation.
cuda1179 wrote: People of all walks of life, even vegetarians, derive joy at the expense of animal life.
To derive joy at the expense of animal life seems very different from deriving joy from animal suffering, doesn't it?
A hunted animal usually suffers less from the millisecond it takes for a bullet to go through it's brain than to die from habitat loss or disruption to it's environment. A cattleyard has significantly more suffering than living in the wild until you are shot.
cuda1179 wrote: May as well be cracking jokes about the kids that died at the Ariana Grande concert.
I fail to see how the comparison is supposed to work. Those kids weren't trying to kill anything, were they? I would be very interested to learn how you could present the situation as the bomber acting in self-defense. On the other hand, the elephant was definitely acting in self-defense .
!
Okay, how about a more on point comparrison? Someone would be a total jerk if they stated A doctor that died in an abortion clinic bombing was "Karma". They'd be a jerk if they thought it wasn't worth worrying about, or that they don't feel any loss at the death. Pretty much the same thing.
BigWaaagh wrote: [ Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, "Lovely!". Individual makes a living, legally or not, helping with the decimation of species that are being driven to extinction, purely for amusement and sport, and then gets offed by his prey, "feth him!"
To try and shame me for being impassioned about a position I take is a personal matter, plain and simple.
You are free to your feelings, but at least try to be factual. He was helping the the protection of this species, not the "decimation". Try to not ignore the scientific consensus.
This was addressed earlier in the thread. Trophy hunting doesn't have any meaningful impact on species conservation. Some times...usually...quite the opposite.
Got a source for those claims? If you want sources in favor of it I can provide you with plenty.
I've seen some of your "sources", I'll pass. For every point attempted by the pro-trophy hunters, there's numerous counter-points disproving it. At one time, I remember Big Tobacco touting the benefits of it's product too...didn't make 'em right.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/24 15:31:38
2017/05/24 15:32:48
Subject: Big Game Hunting Trip Gone Bad - Karma Visiting a Donkey Cave?
. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that 
.
.
