GGT as much as I hate robberies, one person's home being invaded and the robber killing the family wouldn't even warrant the international news Cecil the lion is getting. This thread is about a flawed perspective in terms of what value Cecil the lion has in the grand scheme of things.
What made you believe that Cecil isn't special? Or that his death had no more importance or magnitude than any other big game killing? Obviously, if hunters are willing to pay $50,000 for the "opportunity" to kill him they already know it's a questionable endeavor.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
How you can define government as keeping the peace by defending "internal" vs "external" thoughts?
What do you mean be 'we'? You suggest there is someone else with such a fucked up mind?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
It's funny because it's true
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
He probably meant threats but as we know some people consider thinking to be dangerous
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
lol yes, internal and external threats.
The better question might be why aren't you bothered by an American dentist who'd spend $50,000 to kill big game, for a nearly extinct species in Africa? His education was largely funded by US tax payers who want affordable dentistry but can't find it.
So which is more important? People who can't find affordable dental care....or the dentists who've used public loans?
Last edited by GGT; 08-05-2015 at 03:52 AM.
Legal game hunting, such as what this dentist chap pays a signficant amount of money for, is big business in impoverished countries like Zimbabwe. What was that graphic I saw? 17% of Zimbabwean land is given over specifically to game hunting, and the business generates 0.3% of the country's GDP. No small amount.
I understand that a chunk of the money generated from legal game hunting is set aside specifically to be ploughed into the national parks, paying for upkeep and maintenance, rangers, anti-poaching measures etc.
So, to simplify, allow the hunting of 1 lion to preserve the future of 100? It leaves an awfully sour taste in the mouth for any civilised person, but short of any viable alternatives to pay for the realistic upkeep of the massive national parks and the future of endangered animals, I think it's a necessary evil.
Or to simplify a little bit further; any 'civilized' person you know does more damage to the habitat of Cecil the lion or any of his brothers so this particular incidence of taking the bother of actually going there and put a bullet in him doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Congratulations America
The point is taken; land encroachment/loss of habitat is the largest danger to wildlife, certainly.
But there remains a marked difference in quality/morality between mankind's housing/farming encroaching onto the habitat of endangered wildlife, and the purposeful killing of said wildlife for 'fun'. It is the latter which leaves a sour taste. Aforementioned resultant funding from hunting notwithstanding.
Hmmm. I can think of a number of situations where the ethical reasoning above would be extremely problematic to say the least.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Though this action wasn't legal. This was I've read an illegal kill funded by bribes. That perpetuates the criminality, not sustainability.
The core of the argument Tim refers to is a moral/ethical matter rather than exclusively being a legal one.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You do realise you're saying that eradication without giving it a second thought is better than killing out of some warped admiration for a big cat?
Congratulations America
That's not what he's saying. He's saying it's easier to condemn a person who voluntarily does something bad and wholly unnecessary for "fun" than it is to condemn someone whose life is such that, by living in the way they are able, they cause harm.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The two are intertwined.
Ethically we already have legal animal kills all over the world, its called farming. There is an ethical as well as a legal difference between criminally killing an endangered species and legally killing one in a legalised sustainable manner. I'm not saying the latter is something I'd go out and do, or endorse, but what this guy did was no better than poaching.
Why is one form of eradication better than another? Both are bad.
I think it should be noted that often hunters are the most passionate conservationists. Very few hunters are interested in the eradication of any species.
When you're talking about international hunting, GE, that does not hold true.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What are you basing your assertion on?
Why does it put an awful taste in the mouth of a civilized person? It's just an animal.
Do you know how eco-systems work? Hint: making the main predators extinct is not good.
Hope is the denial of reality
Eh by the time they get really endangered it seems like their impact would already have been rather minimal.
I'll take that as a no.
Hope is the denial of reality
So taking a species from a healthy number and dropping it down to endangered doesn't impact the eco-system?
Clearly it would don't you think - you can't have it both ways.
Indeed, but I am referring to legal game hunting. The dentist had been on legal game hunts before this particular one.
Indeed.
I have not mentioned 'better'.
I am pointing out the difference in morality between the two. One is a deliberate, intentional act to kill. The other is an unintentional by-product of another action.
Both are 'bad' and I wish there were a realistic possibility of preventing both from taking place.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 08-06-2015 at 05:19 AM.
Just out of curiosity, are you a vegetarian? Is eating meat 'bad,' or something to be prevented?
Differing cultural mores. Lots of local hunters in Africa aren't particularly interested in conservation. And when you're talking about those in a position to cross continents for hunting trips, you're getting to a small enough subgroup that you can't generalize from the greater body of hunters from their ethnocultural group.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not sure I am following. I don't believe I stated it was universally true of all hunters. Perhaps it would have made more sense to distinguish those who hunt out of necessity from those who choose to hunt. What I believe I said was that hunters are often passionate conservationists, and I haven't come across any that were interested in eradicating entire species. I have yet to see anything that says that doesn't hold true for those hunting internationally. In fact, that these hunters are often willing to spend thousands of dollars on hunts where much of the money goes to support local conservation should give some indication that they perhaps have some passing interest in the topic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote