|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The US has banned imports of cilantro from several farms in the Mexican state of Puebla after an investigation found growing fields littered with human feces and toilet paper.
A joint investigation by the US Food and Drug Administration and Mexican authorities found “objectionable” hygiene conditions in eight of 11 cilantro farms inspected in Puebla, Mexico’s fourth-biggest state, 130km (80 miles) south-east of the capital.
Five of the eight Puebla farms have been linked to recurrent outbreaks of the serious gastric disease cyclosporiasis in the US since 2012. The herb is thought to be at least partially responsible for a current outbreak which has so far sickened 200 people in Texas.
The disease, which is caused by a parasite that lives in human faeces, can lead to severe diarrhea, stomach cramps, weight loss, nauseas, vomiting, fever, extreme tiredness and other flulike symptoms. It can last from a few days to more than a month, and even after the symptoms disappear, some people will suffer recurrent relapses. In rare cases, people can suffer long-term muscle weakness and tiredness.
The parasite is spread by people ingesting contaminated food or water, but is not transmitted person to person.
The FDA and Mexican authorities inspected farms and packing houses across Mexico that produce cilantro – also known as coriander.
Source
|
The Obama administration is preparing to release its landmark climate change regulation with at least one significant concession to its critics — delaying the initial deadline for states to begin cutting the greenhouse gas pollution from their power plants.
The EPA would push the deadline back to 2022, instead of 2020 as the administration initially proposed last summer, a source familiar with the rule told POLITICO late Tuesday. But the ultimate 2030 deadline for states to achieve their final pollution cuts will remain in effect, the source said.
The plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda and his hopes to achieve a global climate deal, would for the first time seek cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s fossil power plants while spurring the growth of renewable electricity sources such as wind and solar. The rule could come out as soon as Monday.
The 2020 deadline was one of the plan’s most-criticized aspects, drawing warnings from states that moving so fast could threaten the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply, and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had said months ago that she was willing to revisit the date. The agency hasn’t said whether it will offer concessions on other parts of the plan, such as a 2013 proposal that all new coal-fired power plants be required to install expensive, novel technology to capture and store their carbon emissions.
In conjunction with postponing the 2020 deadline, the administration will also roll out incentives to encourage states to deploy green energy and energy efficiency programs before 2022, the source said.
Source
|
On July 29 2015 10:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:54 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2015 05:43 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that.
The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable.
[quote]
Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse? There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad. His point still stands, It is was (and still is?) not illegal to make loans like that. Ofcourse it should not be allowed and there should be regulation but it was not illegal. On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that.
The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable.
[quote]
Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money? They payed billions to get back to their old ways and not have the hassle of investigations. Remember those billions are peanuts compared to what they make. They don't give a shit about the money. The standing argument from the people who police the banks is that they are so underfunded that they couldn't prosecute if they wanted to. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.htmlIts not that the crimes were not there. It was the political will to go after them and fear it would cause more economic instability. Literally being rewarded for their bad behavior. And not political will to make them smaller so they could be charged. I worked in the legal field all through the crisis working for banks and its still shocks me to this day that only one person was charged. But remember, the government holds more power than them and might come for you if you give it any more. What good, exactly, comes from putting a few high profile bankers in jail? Is society better off for it? The banking system is a hydra, not a cyclops. Jail one CEO and another will spring up in his place. Who even cares if Bernie Madoff is in jail? He's an old man, and none of us are better off now that he's in jail instead of living out the remainder of his pitiful life in exile. Talk about giving the police more power to comb through the universe of data collected by facebook, google, et al. in order to prosecute corporate criminals misses the forest for the trees. Who cares if we put a few more collar-wearing white men in jail if we help to erode the last vestiges of privacy to do it?
I am 100% sure the people who lost their life savings to Bernie Madoff care that he is in jail. And if you don't put the high profile bankers in jail for crimes and they remain high profile bankers, they will just commit more crimes. But I guess some people are fine with bailing the banks out again.
And this doesn't even require the expansion of government powers. Just for congress to fund the SEC and make sure it isn't super buddy buddy with the banking sector.
|
On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. Show nested quote +It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob.
Wegandi, I believe Udderchaos is referring to the Northern White Rhino, of which there are only four left. Your article is referring to the Southern White Rhino, which has a larger population.
That being said, I do not know if Walter Palmer killed a Northern or Southern White Rhino in the past.
|
On July 29 2015 20:44 SixBans wrote:So how likely is Trump 2016? They said on the Daily Show that he's leading the GOP polls now quite handily and with Fox being the most trusted news outlet in the US, a republican victory seems likely. Is there any 'good' republican to root for? One that doesn't deny man-made climate change, for instance? Or at least one that isn't on the payroll of any oil company?
How likely is he as the Republican candidate or how likely is he to be president? I think he has a decent shot at the candidacy but that man will never set foot in the White House. FOX having incredible ratings isn't really that surprising considering that statistically, people who actually still watch cable television tend to be boomers and older, while younger people are participating in the "cord-cutting revolution." I wouldn't put too much stock into that article as some sort of indication that a majority of Americans are lapping up what FOX is slopping down.
There are no 'good' Republicans to vote for, if those are your criteria. Climate change, along with abortion and gay marriage, are apparently subjects for debate rather than action. Each of the roughly six dozen Republican candidates has tiny differences on key issues, but each is also careful never to step too far away from the party line...except for Trump. He at least doesn't seem to give a shit about the Republican establishment and their rules, and it makes him interesting.
But I do believe that the same people who put Obama in office (twice) but stayed home during the midterm elections last year will be frightened enough of whichever candidate, especially if its Trump, that they will come out and vote again. For how vocal the minorities on either extreme can be, I believe there is a very large, silent minority right smack in the middle that is sick of gay marriage and debating scientific evidence being what our elected officials discuss on a daily basis, and would like to see this country get back on track. Given two reasonable candidates, this silent majority could go either way, but if Democrats put up someone boring like Hillary and Republicans put up someone polarizing like Trump, I think the Republicans lose. Which is unfortunate, because both of those candidates suck ass.
|
On July 29 2015 22:44 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Wegandi, I believe Udderchaos is referring to the Northern White Rhino, of which there are only four left. Your article is referring to the Southern White Rhino, which has a larger population. That being said, I do not know if Walter Palmer killed a Northern or Southern White Rhino in the past.
Southern one, of course (kill made in South Africa). Death of a northern one would have been headline news and made more noise than the lion kill: There is no way the hunter could have plausibly denied he knew something was illegal in the hunt, meaning a sentence of up to 50 000$ and 1 year prison I believe.
|
On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. Show nested quote +It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob.
Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist"
|
The Afghan government said it is investigating reports regarding the death of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
In a news conference on Wednesday, President Ashraf Ghani’s deputy spokesman said the government was aware of the reports of his death and was in the process of assessing them.
Afghan government and intelligence sources reported earlier that Omar had "died two or three years ago".
The US State Department's spokesperson, John Kirby, said the the US cannot confirm Omar's death.
Source
|
On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. Show nested quote +It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob.
Yup, trophy hunting can have a net benefit on wildlife conservation if done right. However, it seems like the guy in question here is at least dubious, and probably just a massive dick. The organization he went with lured the lion out of the national park with bait, and then they hunted it. That is not "trophy hunting done right"; it is poaching. I am sure that he will claim he had all the right permits, and had no clue about what was going on; it is even possible that most of that is true. Nevertheless, he is the one who contracted the completely bogus operation... and THAT is the real problem with trophy hunting. The chance of it being done wrong, by unscrupulous companies out to get in on those thousands of dollars, is way too high. It is also very hard to distinguish a conscientious hunting company, truthfully getting the right permits and finding an animal that can, or even should, be killed, and the fraudulent bogus companies that use shit business practices like the one in this case.
Some info from The Guardian's article, reinforcing this point:
Emmanuel Fundira, president of the Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe, called for Palmer to be prosecuted as a criminal. “Cecil was a collared lion, a protected species,” he said.
“The rules are clear in Zimbabwe that no protected lions should be hunted. The American members of our association are encouraged to conduct themselves in a way that is beyond reproach. We are using hunting as a conservation tool, but when the tool is abused in this way, it destroys the whole principle.”
He added: “The culprits should be brought to book and punished at the highest level. This is really reckless.”
Source
The same article has some background info on the hunter, and it just reinforces the opinion that he has been skirting the law on hunting for quite some time. I hope he gets thrown in jail.
|
Fuck that guy; I hope his business suffers.
|
On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist"
If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease.
|
On July 30 2015 00:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist" If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease.
Have you also become an expert in genetics and saving endangered species in your spare time? Because we have saved endangered species with very low populations before.
|
I don't understand big game hunting... These animals have no natural predators, so they just stand around while hunters walk up and shoot them. How is that entertaining? Even killing a deer would be more challenging.
|
On July 30 2015 00:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 00:29 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist" If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease. Have you also become an expert in genetics and saving endangered species in your spare time? Because we have saved endangered species with very low populations before.
Under 10?
|
On July 30 2015 00:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 00:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 00:29 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist" If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease. Have you also become an expert in genetics and saving endangered species in your spare time? Because we have saved endangered species with very low populations before. Under 10?
You made the baseless claim, why don't you look up exactly when the point of no return is?
|
United States42014 Posts
Inbreeding doesn't necessarily cause genetic faults anyway, it simply amplifies. If there is a genetic fault in the starting stock then it will be compounded, if there is not one then it won't. Inbreeding actually protected the European royal families from haemophilia for centuries, it wasn't until one of them cheated on their husband with a haemophiliac that shit went wrong.
|
On July 30 2015 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 00:37 Millitron wrote:On July 30 2015 00:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 00:29 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist" If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease. Have you also become an expert in genetics and saving endangered species in your spare time? Because we have saved endangered species with very low populations before. Under 10? You made the baseless claim, why don't you look up exactly when the point of no return is?
While his claim about shooting is tasteless, he's not wrong about the northern white rhino almost certainly being beyond saving.
|
On July 30 2015 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 00:44 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 00:37 Millitron wrote:On July 30 2015 00:33 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 00:29 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 23:56 UdderChaos wrote:On July 29 2015 20:32 Wegandi wrote:On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world. It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors. I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob. Sorry I meant to say northern white Rhinos, it seems the article i read got it wrong, I'm guessing to sensationalize it. Or just put a misleading title under the picture like "only 4 northern white Rhinos exist" If there really were so few left, I'd say its actually less of a big deal if he killed one. Four is not enough to maintain a healthy breeding population. You get way too much inbreeding, and instead of the species just dying out immediately, they linger on for a few generations until the genetic defects catch up with them. A species that's down to 4 members is doomed, whether poachers finish it off or disease. Have you also become an expert in genetics and saving endangered species in your spare time? Because we have saved endangered species with very low populations before. Under 10? You made the baseless claim, why don't you look up exactly when the point of no return is? While his claim about shooting is tasteless, he's not wrong about the northern white rhino almost certainly being beyond saving.
Sadly, I think you might be right. I just get very tired of the standard edgy comment with something that sounds sort of accurate so there is some semblance of validity for him to latch onto if challenged.
|
United States42014 Posts
“If you want me to say that marijuana’s not dangerous, I’m not going to say that because I think it is,” Rosenberg said. “Do I think it’s as dangerous as heroin? Probably not. I’m not an expert.”
New leader of the DEA explaining that he doesn't really know very much about drugs but he thinks that, on balance, marijuana is probably less dangerous than heroin. Maybe.
|
On July 30 2015 01:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +“If you want me to say that marijuana’s not dangerous, I’m not going to say that because I think it is,” Rosenberg said. “Do I think it’s as dangerous as heroin? Probably not. I’m not an expert.” New leader of the DEA explaining that he doesn't really know very much about drugs but he thinks that, on balance, marijuana is probably less dangerous than heroin. Maybe.
To be fair I think its more important the head of the DEA knows how to lead the organization side then be an expert on drugs. He should have people around him who do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
