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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But doesnt that happen in nature though? Kinda the order of things?

extinction also happens in nature, humans causing it is no different then other animals/weather/ect causing it.

Except we choose to do it.

"The Nazis killing 6 million Jews is no different to a Volcano wiping out a city of 6 million people."

See the ridiculousness of that statement?

wow, hitler godwin much? the rediculousness of your statement i do see,

as it isnt different, not to the dead people anyways... getting killed by a crazy person, or a comet, you are still just as dead.


also, extintion and genocide are totally diffferent concepts so dont equate the two like that unless you want to be wrong...

plenty of species go extinct without mans help, no force of nature specifically targets on sub group of a species based on their invisible man inthe sky beliefs.

if tigers simply hunted all the rhinos to extinction, you are 100% ok with that... if another animal (man) does it in a way that not only DOESNT make them go extinct, but actively works to preserve the species and help it thrive, you start going crazy about how unnatural it is and compare it to the holocaust...

that you cannot comprehend that the tigers CHOOSE to hunt as well shows just how little you thought this through, and shows that your emotional outrage will not be confined by concepts such as "reality"

 easysauce wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But doesnt that happen in nature though? Kinda the order of things?

extinction also happens in nature, humans causing it is no different then other animals/weather/ect causing it.

Except we choose to do it.

"The Nazis killing 6 million Jews is no different to a Volcano wiping out a city of 6 million people."

See the ridiculousness of that statement?

wow, hitler godwin much? the rediculousness of your statement i do see,

as it isnt different, not to the dead people anyways... getting killed by a crazy person, or a comet, you are still just as dead.


also, extintion and genocide are totally diffferent concepts so dont equate the two like that unless you want to be wrong...

plenty of species go extinct without mans help, no force of nature specifically targets on sub group of a species based on their invisible man inthe sky beliefs.

if tigers simply hunted all the rhinos to extinction, you are 100% ok with that... if another animal does it (man) you start going crazy about how unnatural it is and compare it to the holocaust...
that you cannot comprehend that the tigers CHOOSE to hunt as well shows just how little you thought this through, and shows that your emotional outrage will not be confined by concepts such as "reality"

Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.

Tigers eat what they need. They understand, on a basic, fundamental level, that if their food supply goes extinct so do they.

How many animals have gone extinct in the last 200 years due to their own actions? Now how many extinctions in the last 200 years have been because of man?

And technically referencing the Final Solution would be invoking Himmler more than Hitler.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.

ummm, I feel like if you cannot understand what extinction means (total loss of an entire species) then this conversation wont go anywhere....

elimination an ethnic group within a species =/= extinction of that species



either way, that you claim animals who go extinct due to one animal (man) encroaching on their territory/over hunting as "causing" their extinction, or as "unnatural"

but consider other animals doing the same to be "natural" and due to the now extinct animals own actions, or lack there of, just furthers my point about you reserving your emotional outrage for one specific animal, man, and care not for other methods of it.

either way, in this case, the pay to hunt is actually the force working against extinction, not for it.

This animal is almost gone? Quick, I must kill it before someone else does!

I'd rather these people hunt something a a bit more plentiful, but as long as it's being controlled and it's it serves a purpose, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

 easysauce wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.

ummm, I feel like if you cannot understand what extinction means (total loss of an entire species) then this conversation wont go anywhere....

elimination an ethnic group within a species =/= extinction of that species



either way, that you claim animals who go extinct due to one animal (man) encroaching on their territory/over hunting as "causing" their extinction, or as "unnatural"

but consider other animals doing the same to be "natural" and due to the now extinct animals own actions, or lack there of, just furthers my point about you reserving your emotional outrage for one specific animal, man, and care not for other methods of it.

either way, in this case, the pay to hunt is actually the force working against extinction, not for it.

The vast majority of extinctions in the past 500 years have been as a direct result of human action. Even the animals which died from other animals (so, not man) were often because man introduced predators into the environment and so fethed up the local ecosystem.

Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.



How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.



How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.

How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

I remember that book (book first, then turned into a movie). When it came up in a literature discussion class I was the one who immediately understood the hunter guy's reasoning and motivation, then explained it to the rest of the class.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.



How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.

Spoiler:

How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.

I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.

So...... Hunting you mean.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a large correlation between people who have a lot of money and people who are donkey-caves.

The latter is a highly effective life skill for acquiring the former.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.

Just for people's information, the big bore rifle cartridges originally used for hunting stuff like buffalo could reach out to 1000+ yards. You just had to get very good at judging distances and basically elevate the gun to 30+ degrees. The terrifying (or impressive if you look at it that way) thing is that the bullet still had enough energy to make a kill at that kind of range. I personally am not capable of doing that since I've never gotten to set up a target at 500 yards and practice.

I'd feel confident out to about 120 meters. At that point, I'd be regretting that when the gunsmith converted my rifle from military to sporting they took off the bayonet lug. You're within spitting distance anyway...Yes, I just admitted I am crazy enough to want a bayonet on my hunting rifle. I should probably wander away from the internet for today

 scarletsquig wrote:
It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a large correlation between people who have a lot of money and people who are donkey-caves.

The latter is a highly effective life skill for acquiring the former.

I'm sorry, what? Hunting makes you an donkey-cave now?

 dementedwombat wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.

Just for people's information, the big bore rifle cartridges originally used for hunting stuff like buffalo could reach out to 1000+ yards. You just had to get very good at judging distances and basically elevate the gun to 30+ degrees. The terrifying (or impressive if you look at it that way) thing is that the bullet still had enough energy to make a kill at that kind of range. I personally am not capable of doing that since I've never gotten to set up a target at 500 yards and practice.

I'd feel confident out to about 120 meters. At that point, I'd be regretting that when the gunsmith converted my rifle from military to sporting they took off the bayonet lug. You're within spitting distance anyway...Yes, I just admitted I am crazy enough to want a bayonet on my hunting rifle. I should probably wander away from the internet for today

There's no such thing as too crazy when it comes to the OT forum...

 Redbeard wrote:
Just because the money is being used for conservation doesn't make it any less repulsive.

Look, someone who can afford to drop $100,000 to shoot an elephant, and who claims to care about conservation, could just as easily donate that money to a conservation program.

The bottom line is that the people engaging in these programs don't really care about conservation. Conservation is being inflicted upon them in order to legitimize their desire to kill beautiful things.

It's a real shame that so many parks can only afford to protect these species by pandering to these rich hunters. Necessary evils are still evil.

Clearly throwing money at the problem is the right thing to do, heaven forbid you enjoy satisfying your primal desires.

People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a large correlation between people who have a lot of money and people who are donkey-caves.

The latter is a highly effective life skill for acquiring the former.

Clearly we'd all be better people if we were broke.

Where do you people come up with this gak?

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.



How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.

Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.

 guardpiper wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.

Spoiler:

How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.

Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.

Stop ruining my Hollywood induced, super villain stereotype.

 Ahtman wrote:
If they are endangered why would they need to be culled? It seems odd that a species would be low enough on population to get on the endangered list while simultaneously having enough numbers that we need to organize hunts to keep the population in check.

Because even though they may be endangered, it does not mean they act that way. Alpha lions tend to kill other males to keep their genes the only ones reproducing. When your population is low, that just makes it go even lower.

Ted Nugent made a post the other day about a Rhino that he shot in Africa (on invitation from the government). That rhino had been on record for killing other white rhino's. The money he paid for the hunt went towards the conservation of all rhino's, and it also protected them from one of their own kind who was praying on them.

What was better for the species? Culling the one, or leaving that one alive so it could kill many? Sure the state could just go out there and shoot it, but why do that when they can make money off of allowing others to do it.

It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."

You're welcome. Nothing about their wealth is at fault, it's what they choose to hunt. You're right, people are biologically adapted to hunt - but to eat. There's nothing in our biology that screams "go kill other predators". In fact, nature has designed predators in such a way that they recognize each other and can convey warning messages such that they don't need to fight each other. Lions and leopards are not prey animals, so your half-baked biology doesn't mean much.

djones520 wrote:
Ted Nugent made a post the other day...

There's a sane source. Is this the same Ted Nugent who was investigated by the secret service over his plans to shoot the president? I like Cat Scratch Fever as much as the next guy, but Nugent's basically a laughing stock and a caricature at this point.

...

It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.

Except that deer aren't endangered, and actually require active management as there aren't enough predators left in the US to do the job. I have no issue with you wanting to hunt a deer. If you start bragging about how you're going down to Florida to hunt a manatee, then you're doing the same exact thing that this girl did, and you're just as reprehensible.

So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

 cincydooley wrote:
So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 guardpiper wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.

Spoiler:

How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.

Because poachers can shoot back.

It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.

But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.

Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.

Stop ruining my Hollywood induced, super villain stereotype.

When trying this "adventure". Better be much smarter and well equipped then the prey your after. Trust me. Man vs man the creativity to win knows no boundary

 cincydooley wrote:
So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

Trolling?

 Redbeard wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."

You're welcome. Nothing about their wealth is at fault, it's what they choose to hunt. You're right, people are biologically adapted to hunt - but to eat. There's nothing in our biology that screams "go kill other predators". In fact, nature has designed predators in such a way that they recognize each other and can convey warning messages such that they don't need to fight each other. Lions and leopards are not prey animals, so your half-baked biology doesn't mean much.

djones520 wrote:
Ted Nugent made a post the other day...

There's a sane source. Is this the same Ted Nugent who was investigated by the secret service over his plans to shoot the president? I like Cat Scratch Fever as much as the next guy, but Nugent's basically a laughing stock and a caricature at this point.

...

It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.

Except that deer aren't endangered, and actually require active management as there aren't enough predators left in the US to do the job. I have no issue with you wanting to hunt a deer. If you start bragging about how you're going down to Florida to hunt a manatee, then you're doing the same exact thing that this girl did, and you're just as reprehensible.

If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.

You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.

Why?

I thought taking an innocent life was taking an innocent life.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.

Yeah... because that is what is happening.

As has been explained again and again in this thread, but people seem to keep ignoring so they can continue to stand on their soap box of righteous indignation, these are conservation kills. Culling has to happen for the health of the species overall. It is not as if every hunter can run over there and off one of these animals like it was 1890.

 cincydooley wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?

Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.

Why?

I thought taking an innocent life was taking an innocent life.

Really?

Spear Fishing is now open in the topic....

 djones520 wrote:

If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.

You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.

Well, again, your source is hardly reputable. Ted Nugent, "I never did drugs". Have you heard what he recorded in the 60s and 70s? The man will lie when it is to his advantage.

And, also again, somehow nature survived for thousands of years without human assistance. Man did not need to step in here.