Support NeoGAF

[Fury451]

Has absolutely nothing to do with legality lmao

Imagine basing your morals around the law

No, it's definitely much better to base morals solely on feelings, and meter out wishes for death based on how you feel about someone or something. Feelings are super reliable for that.

 

[minx]

Sure. You're doing that elephant a huge favor by making sure its killed via a paid hunt versus illegally. I'm sure it has the up most respect for the law so it works out.

I'm sure the majority of elephants that are legally killed that are close to death would appreciate that their young child gets to live instead of killed by poachers due to the paid hunt for the near death elephant.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

I'm fine with this.

Yep. Fuck that rich loser who wanted to pose with some ivory on a dead elephant.

I'm not celebrating, but have zero sympathy for his death.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

Yeah, I'm not going to celebrate this or anything, but you're hunting a goddamn elephant. This shit has to happen sometimes.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Has absolutely nothing to do with legality lmao

Imagine basing your morals around the law

Agreed in general but I don't think we can also imprint our morality and understandings on a vastly different culture facing vastly different socioeconomic circumstances.

I wonder how many people disgusted at legal hunting that brings in revenue for local impoverished populations are going to directly donate to those communities so that they don't have to exploit their wildlife just to make ends meet?

 

[Skyzard]

Some people are saying because this man was not technically a poacher but a hunter, who is backed by the local law, because he pays to be able to kill the animal, then that makes it okay. Zimbabwe is making money! It should be okay. The hunters are really helping the animals, and will list a bunch of reasons in the ways their money for killing helps. Protecting them from starvation (elephants can migrate, droughts can change, nature works out, it's not a mercy kill). Protecting them from others (but not yourselves). Protecting property (like a fence would).

Nope. You're just paying for the privilege to kill, whereas the poacher won't. Hunters have been known to collect the ivory afterwards for their trophies or even to sell and work them. Both end with the animal being killed unnecessarily.

Zimbabwe can get its money elsewhere for this. Like more safaris, or having its army train on poachers.

 

[Rentahamster]

Lesser of two evils, is still evil. You're still fueling the supply demand chain of ivory. If all poachers became hunters, it wouldn't be any different tbh.

To me this is no different than hunting whales or dolphins.

If all poachers became hunters, then they all wouldn't be able to buy a license to hunt. Licenses are only given out on a limited basis depending on what the stats say the current population can sustain.

 

[Beefy]

However, the Annual Water-hole Count in Hwange last year by Wildlife and Environment Zimbabwe revealed that Hwange’s elephant population at 22 414 ,was less than half the figure of 54 000 touted by Minister Kasukuwere, who does not explain where his figure came from. While the water-hole figures may not be 100% accurate as elephant populations are highly mobile dependant on environmental factors, they do give a good indication of the size of the population.

As for other areas in Zimbabwe, a survey just released by Kevin Dunham at the Workshop to Develop Elephant Conservation Policy and Management Plan for Zimbabwe has revealed that the elephant population in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi River Valley, which includes Mana Pools, has declined by more than 40% over the past thirteen years.

Far more said about it here:
http://wildlifenews.co.uk/2015/04/c...ts-to-justify-selling-off-its-wild-elephants/

So there may not be too many elephants in Zimbabwe after all.



As for the hunter getting killed. I won't laugh at his death, but neither will I care.

 

[GIANKRATOS]

Holy shit