Support NeoGAF

[ebullientprism]

There are too many hunters. The elephant was culling their population. GG.

 

[Skyzard]

What you're saying about the elephants charge isn't changing what I'm saying. Yeah, they shot at short range because it was charging. If they were there to kill it for its small amount of ivory, why didn't they shoot from much farther away? If they were tracking it then it's probable that they saw it first.

Like I said in my post, it's a tough situation. The hunters are there to help fund the parks and conservation efforts. Without them, there is no protection against poachers.

I understand what you're saying about ivory - they can use it to determine the age. But I don't care.

They were following its tracks for the hunt:

It adds: “Feeling he was quite close to the elephant, Ian and his tracker Robert continued to follow the tracks in hopes of getting a look at the ivory as the client stayed with the game scout.”

They eventually caught up with the bull, spotting him at about 50-100 metres. The bull instantly turned and began a full charge.

Not sure how hunters are better than poachers if the end result is the same. Oh right, the hunters pay for the privilege so it's okay, legal and right.

Go to a target range or play videogames or paintball.

 

[MJLord]

And why is it humanity's duty to do this? Nature was handling it just fine for hundreds of thousands of years before we made guns.

I wasn't saying it's our duty I was saying that arguably it's slightly more compassionate than letting them starve.

Although now you bring it up maybe it is our duty. After all humanity pollute and builds cities, towns and roads on potential hunting grounds for animals. We poach them. We intervene too much to just say "oh nature will take care of it". Maybe it is our duty?

 

[Enron]

I understand what you're saying about ivory - they can use it to determine the age. But I don't care.

They were following its tracks for the hunt:


Not sure how hunters are better than poachers if the end result is the same. Oh right, the hunters pay for the privilege so it's okay, legal and right.

And their money helps to keep marauders from coming in and slaughtering all those elephants on sight. How is this a hard thing to understand? Oh right, you don't care.

The elephant that killed the guy wasn't even one they were going to shoot - it was too young.

 

[Skyzard]

And their money helps to keep marauders from coming in and slaughtering all those elephants on sight. How is this a hard thing to understand? Oh right, you don't care.

The elephant that killed the guy wasn't even one they were going to shoot - it was too young.

Poachers and hunters both try and kill the older elephants, both checking the ivory, for (possibly) different reasons. One just pays a tax, which helps keep the one that doesn't pay away.

 

[Leunam]

And why is it humanity's duty to do this? Nature was handling it just fine for hundreds of thousands of years before we made guns.

It's precisely because of our intervention that we need to do what we can to help. Nature is not going to solve the problem of the poaching industry.

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

Kind of a interesting situation. No surprise that people here show no sympathy for the hunter since on its surface hunting elephants seems like such a shitty thing to do. I can't blame them. But I read another article that goes into a little more detail:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...professional-big-game-hunter-in-Zimbabwe.html



Supposedly they were tracking a lion first, but decided to get a look at this elephant instead. Not sure if they're telling the truth. Shooting from ten yards at a charging Bull elephant with elevated levels of testosterone sounds terrifying.

The article also linked to this story about elephant population:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...or-funds-lost-from-ban-on-trophy-hunters.html





Sounds like controlling elephant populations is a monumental task and Zimbabwe in particular is having a hard time with it since one of their main sources of income for those operations (hunting) has diminished. Seems like donations aren't enough.

The whole ordeal comes off as nothing but difficult lesser-of-two-evil choices at every turn. Flourishing elephant populations in the wrong place means a spike in poacher operations as well. Lack of money means short staffed parks which also means less protection. I sure wouldn't want to be the one to make those decisions.

There's always a bit more to stories of "trophy hunting" but in my experiences here people are less likely to look at that perspective. I wish people were more willing to give it a real critical analysis the way they would other scientific research.

I'm surprised someone like Ted Turner hasn't put a significant fortune in big game conservation in some of these countries. Seems like they're always hard up for money.

 

[Chezzymann]

Awesome elephant.

 

[Enron]

Poachers and hunters both kill the older elephants, both checking the ivory, for different reasons. One just pays a tax.

poachers kill a lot more than the handful of older elephants than legal hunts do. Come on, dude.

 

[CrocMother]

Finally nature wins for once.

Man=nature. This is just a case of the underdog coming out on top.

 

[Leunam]

I understand what you're saying about ivory - they can use it to determine the age. But I don't care.

They were following its tracks for the hunt:


Not sure how hunters are better than poachers if the end result is the same. Oh right, the hunters pay for the privilege so it's okay, legal and right.

Go to a target range or play videogames or paintball.

That doesn't say they were following it for a hunt.

You're still misunderstanding, I think. Hunters are paying for the privilege, and that money goes towards the protection of the herds living in these parks. It's legal, but I guess you can argue if you want wether or not it's moral. I'd say it is given where that money goes. But you'd rather disregard that.

And going to a target range or playing video games doesn't have tangible benefits the way game hunting in national parks does. You're not helping your argument.

 

[Laekon]

Poachers and hunters both try and kill the older elephants, both checking the ivory, for (possibly) different reasons. One just pays a tax, which helps keep the one that doesn't pay away.

Poachers are known to kill whole family groups. You think they have a long term business plan?

People don't seem to get that the guide didn't want to kill the elephant because his client was the one paying to do it. That's most likely why he didn't just start shooting. They were probably in thick trees and wanted to make sure it wasn't a smaller/younger male.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

There are too many hunters. The elephant was culling their population. GG.

You own me a keyboard.

I know it's terrible that someone died, but I just can't feel sympathy for this guy. It doesn't matter how lany elephants were in the region, or if they wanted a lion at first. That guy decided to kill for business, and ignored the advice of his guide. So his business killed him.

The only time where I'm fine with killing a large animal is when it threaten human habitations, or has an history as a mankiller.

 

[Leunam]

You own me a keyboard.

I know it's terrible that someone died, but I just can't feel sympathy for this guy. It doesn't matter how lany elephants were in the region, or if they wanted a lion at first. That guy decided to kill for business, and ignored the advice of his guide. So his business killed him.

The only time where I'm fine with killing a large animal is when it threaten human habitations, or has an history as a mankiller.

Doubtful, because he only took a shot once the bull had closed the distance and was ten yards away.

 

[params7]

Elephant is most likely dead.

 

[EchoChamber]

Sometimes I'm scared of GAF.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Poachers = 100,000
Elephants = 1

 

[Skyzard]

That doesn't say they were following it for a hunt.

You're still misunderstanding, I think. Hunters are paying for the privilege, and that money goes towards the protection of the herds living in these parks. It's legal, but I guess you can argue if you want wether or not it's moral. I'd say it is given where that money goes. But you'd rather disregard that.

And going to a target range or playing video games doesn't have tangible benefits the way game hunting in national parks does. You're not helping your argument.

Another quote in the op mentions the elephant hunting part, on phone at the moment. Second sentence iirc.

The money goes to the protection of them, as long as the guy hunting doesn't pay.

`Poachers are known to kill whole family groups. You think they have a long term business plan?`

The distinction isn't enough for one to be okay, neither does him being the guide leading them vs the one to pull the trigger.

 

[Fancy Clown]

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. He took on the risk of trying to kill a giant, aggressive animal, just for sport essentially. Sucks for his family, but he made his choice. Hope the elephant is okay.

 

[-MB-]

Odd, I saw this reported on on dutch sites but no mention it was an elephant hunt, but a lion one.

 

[Leunam]

Your article mentions that they were tracking elephants for a group, but the article I shared says he only had one client want they were tracking lions. Not sure who is right, but it also says this:

“Ian and Robert began shouting in order to stop the charge. At very close range, Ian was able to get off one shot before the bull killed him. The scene was very graphic.”

So again, they weren't hunting this particular elephant. My guess is that they're given tags for very specific members of these herds, which is why shooting at this elephant was a last resort. That's a far cry from the original narrative that everyone has made up their mind on, that this guy was set on killing this elephant. And for its ivory, no less. If they handle ivory from these hunts the same way they do with poacher hauls then they burn them and make no profit from it. They can't bring it home because that's been outlawed.

 

[Ovid]

LOL, adding insult to injury.

 

[bengraven]

"tragically"

Mmm, this is going to be a fun thread full of kneejerk reactions.

Yep. Yep, it certainly is.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

If you really want to shoot your beloved guns, use it against ISIS or something instead of critically endangered animals.

No you see they'd actually be getting shot back. We underestimate just how difficult it is to drive around in a jeep and get directly taken to your prey by professionals. Then shooting them from a distance with a rifle. Totally even playing field for the animals, completely fair in all aspects.

 

[breadtruck]

Good. Now all we need is for the giraffes to fight back also

 

[Ingueferroque]

There are too many hunters. The elephant was culling their population. GG.

Haha

 

[truly101]

Roll Tide

 

[drexplora]

who cares if its legal? Cigs are legal too.

u win sir

 

[Fugu]

And their money helps to keep marauders from coming in and slaughtering all those elephants on sight. How is this a hard thing to understand? Oh right, you don't care.

The elephant that killed the guy wasn't even one they were going to shoot - it was too young.

I can sympathize with the argument that we have to consider the outcomes of policy instead of using blind moral outrage to guide how we handle these issues, but the premise that the only way to fund the safeguarding of elephants is to shoot said elephants is so ass-backwards that I simply do not buy it.

The larger issue of culling is far too complex for a single news article to address, so I also don't understand why you're taking the word of the article as gospel.

 

[Theonik]

That wasn't part of the deal, Blackheart.

I have altered the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further.

 

[Leunam]

I can sympathize with the argument that we have to consider the outcomes of policy instead of using blind moral outrage to guide how we handle these issues, but the premise that the only way to fund the safeguarding of elephants is to shoot said elephants is so ass-backwards that I simply do not buy it.

There are other methods, of course. Donations, more government money, and perhaps most important of all, stemming demand.

The last one is perhaps the hardest to do. You have to break centuries of tradition in a market that is newly rich. There are many efforts to do so (Yao Ming, for instance, has worked for rhino conservation), but it's not making much of a dent as I understand it.

At the moment, donations don't seem to help as much as hunting does either. People love to talk about how important these conservation efforts are, but how often are they putting their money towards those goals? Not often enough to completely replace hunting permits.

Stopping poachers is also an option, but I don't know enough about what it takes to stop them as well. They'll likely dissappear along with the demand.

 

[Skyzard]

Killing is profitable, might as well support it, how else would they prevent...killing.

 

[NEO0MJ]

At the moment, donations don't seem to help as much as hunting does either. People love to talk about how important these conservation efforts are, but how often are they putting their money towards those goals? Not often enough to completely replace hunting permits.

Stopping poachers is also an option, but I don't know enough about what it takes to stop them as well. They'll likely dissappear along with the demand.

Pretty much. When as the last time people here saying it was good donated to a cause like this? As nice as it would be for elephants to not be hunted at all they still need money to protect them.

 

[Fury451]

Man has a family who will mourn him, and the response to his death here can be summed up as "Good, nothing of value was lost".

Interesting.

Even with some possible additional information that Leunam posted, which is largely ignored it seems.

 

[red731]

Okay.
You can get burned while playing with fire.

 

[Horse Armour]

 

[kame-sennin]

I have to agree, legal or not, what gives people the right to cull their numbers like they are in control of nature or some shit?

The idea just rubs me the wrong way, even if the intention is good.

Yeah, the logic is absurd. One of the defenses of culling is that if the elephant population gets to large, poaching will increase. "Humans have got to kill elephants, otherwise, humans will start killing elephants!"

An elephant who never forgets to kill.

This is good. This is damn good.

 

[Leunam]

Killing is profitable, might as well support it, how else would they prevent...killing.

I support conservation efforts.

I don't hunt, I have absolutely no interest in doing so. I certainly could if I wanted to since some of my family and friends go out every season and I'm often invited. I don't own a gun and I've never been to a range. Closest I have is a bow, and it's legally not powerful enough to use for bow hunting here in Texas.

But I can rationalize why there have to be some concessions made for these parks to be able to fund themselves. It's not pretty, and I have no dog in this fight myself, but there is a bigger picture here beyond a single dude going out and shooting animals. I try not to let my emotions get in the way.

 

[Enron]

There are other methods, of course. Donations, more government money, and perhaps most important of all, stemming demand.

The last one is perhaps the hardest to do. You have to break centuries of tradition in a market that is newly rich. There are many efforts to do so (Yao Ming, for instance, has worked for rhino conservation), but it's not making much of a dent as I understand it.

At the moment, donations don't seem to help as much as hunting does either. People love to talk about how important these conservation efforts are, but how often are they putting their money towards those goals? Not often enough to completely replace hunting permits.

Stopping poachers is also an option, but I don't know enough about what it takes to stop them as well. They'll likely dissappear along with the demand.

Money. That's what it takes. Money to hire and arm rangers who are usually outgunned by poachers. That's part of the reason why there are limited legal hunts.

 

[Leunam]

Money. That's what it takes. Money to hire and arm rangers who are usually outgunned by poachers. That's part of the reason why there are limited legal hunts.

Absolutely. Zimbabwe has admitted that the lack of hunters has been a big blow to their funds and they've had to resort to selling elephants. And I don't think that's going to fill that gap.

 

[xenist]

Fair play to the elephant.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Ha.

Either way, it's fucked up that people are happy a person is dead.

 

[nubbe]

If it is legal to hunt elephants and dolphins, it might just as well be legal to hunt humans too

 

[molnizzle]

Predator comes to kill elephant; elephant kills predator instead.

Nature really is beautiful.

Man has a family who will mourn him, and the response to his death here can be summed up as "Good, nothing of value was lost".

Interesting.

...so does the elephant.

 

[kame-sennin]

Human life is more important because we are humans.

This logic is unassailable.

 

[Reset]

If it is legal to hunt elephants and dolphins, it might just as well be legal to hunt humans too

You're comparing human lives with elephant lives. Come on dude lol

 

[moggio]

Either way, it's fucked up that people are happy a person is dead.

I'm trying to care but... *shrugs*

Hope the elephant is okay though.

 

[Air]

"Ian was tragically killed by an elephant bull earlier today while guiding an elephant hunt in Chewore North."

Tragically is not the word I would use here.

 

[Razmos]

You're comparing human lives with elephant lives. Come on dude lol

Humans are inherently better than all other life on earth? do go on.

 

[EMT0]

All this kneejerk. Come on GAF. Hunter != poacher. Their actions may not be very tasteful but it protects their species as a whole.