|
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. |
United States42014 Posts
On July 30 2015 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 01:16 KwarK wrote:“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.
To be fair I think it's more important that the head of the DEA isn't secretly three children stacked inside a long trenchcoat with a fake beard. He can have people around him who know how to lead the organization side and be experts on drugs....
You're allowed to have multiple criteria for a position and complain when criteria which are obviously important aren't met.
|
On July 30 2015 00:16 Acrofales 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. 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: Show nested quote +
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.”
SourceThe 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.
No doubt, but as you said, on the net, these activities have directly led to extremely positive results (which, let's be honest here, was never in doubt. The communal experience led to near extinction for these species.). I'm all for expanding private conservatories, refuges, ecotourism, etc. Put ownership and profit on the line and there's a real reason to save these animals, not pie in the sky demagoguery. That is what irks me about contemporary society. The results and consequences don't matter. It's all about emotions and intentions. Anyways, I have no doubt this Palmer guy has some issues, but the post I was responding to had to do with his assertion that people killing these animals ceteris paribus should be ruthlessly destroyed both legally and in the court of public opinion. The fact that trophy hunting has contributed to the come back of these species doesn't matter to these types of people. It's really superficial and I have to be honest, reeks of that hoity-toity crap I really really dislike.
Anywho! Something tells me he won't be extradited. When was the last time an American was extradited to stand trial?
|
On July 30 2015 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:
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.
Well, humans aren't unnatural, and us being on top of the food chain, does sort of imply them having a natural predator - us. Something tells me though those who go on these 'hunts' (it's more like a theme park to be honest) surely don't do it for the challenge as you said. It's a trophy. Let these people pay 50k-300k to hunt and fund these conservations. Oh, as for Lions, as with any other cat, they sleep most of the day and have predictable patterns. If you wanted to kill one, it wouldn't be difficult, which is why I hesitate to even give the term 'hunt' to this type of activity. A hunt implies a sort of give and take - chance of failure, personal danger, etc.
|
On July 29 2015 22:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 10:17 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
There are more options than "remaining a banker" and rotting in jail. You seem to have missed the point though. We are going to bail the banks out again regardless of how many bankers we send to jail for the last bailout because you don't change how the financial system operates by jailing the guy who happened to be at the top when it collapsed.
|
On July 30 2015 01:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 00:16 Acrofales 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. 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.”
SourceThe 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. No doubt, but as you said, on the net, these activities have directly led to extremely positive results (which, let's be honest here, was never in doubt. The communal experience led to near extinction for these species.). I'm all for expanding private conservatories, refuges, ecotourism, etc. Put ownership and profit on the line and there's a real reason to save these animals, not pie in the sky demagoguery. That is what irks me about contemporary society. The results and consequences don't matter. It's all about emotions and intentions. Anyways, I have no doubt this Palmer guy has some issues, but the post I was responding to had to do with his assertion that people killing these animals ceteris paribus should be ruthlessly destroyed both legally and in the court of public opinion. The fact that trophy hunting has contributed to the come back of these species doesn't matter to these types of people. It's really superficial and I have to be honest, reeks of that hoity-toity crap I really really dislike. Anywho! Something tells me he won't be extradited. When was the last time an American was extradited to stand trial?
Behind your poor arguments, all I see is a guy defending the right of a rich white dude to kill protected animals in a black country and paying some poor idiots who will eventually take the blame for him.
But thanks god, he made some photos.
|
On July 30 2015 02:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 01:50 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 00:16 Acrofales 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. 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.”
SourceThe 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. No doubt, but as you said, on the net, these activities have directly led to extremely positive results (which, let's be honest here, was never in doubt. The communal experience led to near extinction for these species.). I'm all for expanding private conservatories, refuges, ecotourism, etc. Put ownership and profit on the line and there's a real reason to save these animals, not pie in the sky demagoguery. That is what irks me about contemporary society. The results and consequences don't matter. It's all about emotions and intentions. Anyways, I have no doubt this Palmer guy has some issues, but the post I was responding to had to do with his assertion that people killing these animals ceteris paribus should be ruthlessly destroyed both legally and in the court of public opinion. The fact that trophy hunting has contributed to the come back of these species doesn't matter to these types of people. It's really superficial and I have to be honest, reeks of that hoity-toity crap I really really dislike. Anywho! Something tells me he won't be extradited. When was the last time an American was extradited to stand trial? Behind your poor arguments, all I see is a guy defending the right of a rich white dude to kill protected animals in a black country and paying some poor idiot who will eventually take the blame for him. But thanks god, he made some photos.
Case meet point. Please tell Namibia how much better off they'd be with their old policies - or better yet, those species who would probably be extinct by now. All I see is a rich western white dude with an elitist attitude towards those black folk who have chosen a different, very successful way to increase endangered species populations through capitalistic endeavors. It must really hurt, but then again, all our livestock populations are pretty healthy too, thanks to property ownership.
|
On July 30 2015 02:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:13 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 01:50 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 00:16 Acrofales 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. 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.”
SourceThe 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. No doubt, but as you said, on the net, these activities have directly led to extremely positive results (which, let's be honest here, was never in doubt. The communal experience led to near extinction for these species.). I'm all for expanding private conservatories, refuges, ecotourism, etc. Put ownership and profit on the line and there's a real reason to save these animals, not pie in the sky demagoguery. That is what irks me about contemporary society. The results and consequences don't matter. It's all about emotions and intentions. Anyways, I have no doubt this Palmer guy has some issues, but the post I was responding to had to do with his assertion that people killing these animals ceteris paribus should be ruthlessly destroyed both legally and in the court of public opinion. The fact that trophy hunting has contributed to the come back of these species doesn't matter to these types of people. It's really superficial and I have to be honest, reeks of that hoity-toity crap I really really dislike. Anywho! Something tells me he won't be extradited. When was the last time an American was extradited to stand trial? Behind your poor arguments, all I see is a guy defending the right of a rich white dude to kill protected animals in a black country and paying some poor idiot who will eventually take the blame for him. But thanks god, he made some photos. Case meet point. Please tell Namibia how much better off they'd be with their old policies - or better yet, those species who would probably be extinct by now. All I see is a rich western white dude with an elitist attitude towards those black folk who have chosen a different, very successful way to increase endangered species populations through capitalistic endeavors. It must really hurt, but then again, all our livestock populations are pretty healthy too, thanks to property ownership.
You're right, Africa is a heaven that shows how capitalism is successful in everything, even in protecting wild life.
And really, Namibia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe... all the same.
You don't even see that it's the opposite of capitalism that you somehow defend in your posts : implementing state rules designed protect specific species and reglementing the hunting (outside of the market). But who the fuck cares, it's capitalism yo.
|
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?
Okay, for starters, the Fox thing is hardly evidence that a Republican will win. In reality, they face a serious uphill battle against Hillary.
On climate change, gay rights and moderates in general:
Lindsay Graham:
Okay, not really a moderate, but what passes for one these days. Serious foreign policy hawk neocon, with some pro-business credentials. Thinks climate change is real. Says (as the believers all do) that we need to be careful not to overdo the fight against climate change. Generally pro-immigrant, and has a decent track record of making (failed) attempts to resolve this problem through compromise.
John Kasich:
Legitimately a moderate, thinks we should act on global warming, thinks it's real. Mixed record on environmental issues in Ohio. Personally against gay marriage, but basically thinks the whole thing is over. Openly pro-immigrant now, after an "evolution" while governor, unusual in being openly in favor of a path to citizenship.
Chris Christie:
Legitimately a moderate, but recently trying to pretend not to be. So some mixed signals. Has reiterated a few times that he thinks we should "defer to the experts" (scientists). Like Kasich, he's a pragmatist, so action would likely be on an international level. On gay rights, he's a pretty classic, "Say conservative things, do liberal things" kinda guy. Vetoed gay marriage, then basically made it happen by dropping the court case. Very anti-drug attitude in general, if that kinda thing matters to you. Pro-immigrant, but recent rhetoric has been distancing himself from his record (which including basically ignoring immigration cases as a prosecutor and getting F grades from anti-immigrant groups.)
Jeb Bush
Sorta a moderate. Also a Bush. More viable than those other guys. Conservative Catholic, very pro life. Personally opposed to gay marriage, but things the debate is done with and uses pretty sympathetic language. On the environment, pretty hard to pin down. Occasionally uses moderate environmentalist rhetoric, but generally hesitant to take action. Hispanic family, quite pro-immigration, has even said kind things about the kind of people who immigrate illegally to provide for their families.
So that's an overview on social issues. Economic stuff is generally more opaque. Personally, I'm rooting for Christie or Kasich, whoever does better in the coming month, and I'd side with Bush begrudgingly against a Clinton candidacy. Of course, if GH pulls it off and Bernie's the candidate, it's a new ball game...
Put another way, I love Christie's rhetoric (all about pragmatism and compromise), but I'd prefer an ethical candidate against Hillary to provide a strong contrast. Kasich is relatively moderate and seems like a legitimately decent guy. I'd vote for either. Bush, well, he keeps saying sensible things on lots of issues, but he's a fucking Bush. If he had a different last name and everything else were the same, I'd root for him on viability grounds.
|
On July 30 2015 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:18 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:13 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 01:50 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 00:16 Acrofales 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. 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.”
SourceThe 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. No doubt, but as you said, on the net, these activities have directly led to extremely positive results (which, let's be honest here, was never in doubt. The communal experience led to near extinction for these species.). I'm all for expanding private conservatories, refuges, ecotourism, etc. Put ownership and profit on the line and there's a real reason to save these animals, not pie in the sky demagoguery. That is what irks me about contemporary society. The results and consequences don't matter. It's all about emotions and intentions. Anyways, I have no doubt this Palmer guy has some issues, but the post I was responding to had to do with his assertion that people killing these animals ceteris paribus should be ruthlessly destroyed both legally and in the court of public opinion. The fact that trophy hunting has contributed to the come back of these species doesn't matter to these types of people. It's really superficial and I have to be honest, reeks of that hoity-toity crap I really really dislike. Anywho! Something tells me he won't be extradited. When was the last time an American was extradited to stand trial? Behind your poor arguments, all I see is a guy defending the right of a rich white dude to kill protected animals in a black country and paying some poor idiot who will eventually take the blame for him. But thanks god, he made some photos. Case meet point. Please tell Namibia how much better off they'd be with their old policies - or better yet, those species who would probably be extinct by now. All I see is a rich western white dude with an elitist attitude towards those black folk who have chosen a different, very successful way to increase endangered species populations through capitalistic endeavors. It must really hurt, but then again, all our livestock populations are pretty healthy too, thanks to property ownership. You're right, Africa is a heaven that shows how capitalism is successful in everything, even in protecting wild life.
Ooooh, how witty. Deflect fact with dastardly retort. Just like Costa Rica is a heaven that shows how capitalism is successful in everything, even in protecting rainforests! If only the Russians were as wise the Namibians. Maybe then the Siberian Tiger wouldn't soon to be extinct.
|
United States42014 Posts
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options".
|
On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options".
Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery.
|
United States42014 Posts
On July 30 2015 02:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options". Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery.
What on earth are you talking about? Of course the animals matter. Your argument is that killing some animals is good because it's better than killing every single animal which is what was happening before. My argument is that while leaving some alive is better than killing all of them there is still room for improvement towards killing none of them. That killing some of them, while a relative improvement, is not good simply because there is room for it to get worse.
You're literally advocating the killing of the animals and then declaring that you're the one who cares about them and I think they don't matter. That's some crazy high level doublethink you have going on there.
|
On July 30 2015 02:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:36 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options". Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery. What on earth are you talking about? Of course the animals matter. Your argument is that killing some animals is good because it's better than killing every single animal which is what was happening before. My argument is that while leaving some alive is better than killing all of them there is still room for improvement towards killing none of them. That killing some of them, while a relative improvement, is not good simply because there is room for it to get worse. You're literally advocating the killing of the animals and then declaring that you're the one who cares about them and I think they don't matter. That's some crazy high level doublethink you have going on there.
Because trophy tourism allows the conservatories to do what they're intended to do - provide a stable growing population, as well as provide incentive to keep it that way. You are so ignorant of reality it's hard to fathom anyone being more oblivious. Of course it's not about the animals. You think the old socialist policies that nearly led to the extinction of these animals was successful. That to me tells me you don't give a shit about the animals. Because of capitalisms incentive to prevent extinction southern white rhinos are doing very well.
I mean, it's like you don't understand the very basis of our food pyramids with our livestock populations. Collectivization starved millions. How about you institute the same old policies for our food supply? See how quickly livestock numbers tumble.
|
United States42014 Posts
On July 30 2015 02:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:39 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2015 02:36 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options". Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery. What on earth are you talking about? Of course the animals matter. Your argument is that killing some animals is good because it's better than killing every single animal which is what was happening before. My argument is that while leaving some alive is better than killing all of them there is still room for improvement towards killing none of them. That killing some of them, while a relative improvement, is not good simply because there is room for it to get worse. You're literally advocating the killing of the animals and then declaring that you're the one who cares about them and I think they don't matter. That's some crazy high level doublethink you have going on there. Because trophy tourism allows the conservatories to do what they're intended to do - provide a stable growing population, as well as provide incentive to keep it that way. You are so ignorant of reality it's hard to fathom anyone being more oblivious. Of course it's not about the animals. You think the old socialist policies that nearly led to the extinction of these animals was successful. That to me tells me you don't give a shit about the animals. Because of capitalisms incentive to prevent extinction southern white rhinos are doing very well. I mean, it's like you don't understand the very basis of our food pyramids with our livestock populations. Collectivization starved millions. How about you institute the same old policies for our food supply? See how quickly livestock numbers tumble.
Leaving the national parks alone would also allow the species within them to have a stable growing population with even fewer animals being shot by humans.
I really don't understand how you're not getting into this.
I want us to be killing none of the animals. You're arguing for killing some of the animals. Your argument for killing some of the animals is that it's better than killing all of the animals and this means that you care more about the animals than I do.
Also you seem to think that I want to collectivise the Ukrainians, possibly in Namibia. Honestly it's really not clear at this point what the hell you're talking about, although I'm not sure what to expect from a guy who thinks that bullets help animal populations.
|
There are very good arguments for auctioning off the rights to hunt old males that are beyond their breeding prime.
What they can wind up doing is injuring/killing the young males & other cubs, or not allowing the females to breed. (mostly rhinos & elephants iirc)
But this guy's hunt didn't go down that way...and the large african cats generally tend to breed pretty well.
|
United States42014 Posts
Clearly I'm an elitist for thinking maybe the animals can work out how to breed themselves without the intervention of the white man's bullets. God knows how they made it all those years before we came along.
|
On July 30 2015 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:45 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:39 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2015 02:36 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options". Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery. What on earth are you talking about? Of course the animals matter. Your argument is that killing some animals is good because it's better than killing every single animal which is what was happening before. My argument is that while leaving some alive is better than killing all of them there is still room for improvement towards killing none of them. That killing some of them, while a relative improvement, is not good simply because there is room for it to get worse. You're literally advocating the killing of the animals and then declaring that you're the one who cares about them and I think they don't matter. That's some crazy high level doublethink you have going on there. Because trophy tourism allows the conservatories to do what they're intended to do - provide a stable growing population, as well as provide incentive to keep it that way. You are so ignorant of reality it's hard to fathom anyone being more oblivious. Of course it's not about the animals. You think the old socialist policies that nearly led to the extinction of these animals was successful. That to me tells me you don't give a shit about the animals. Because of capitalisms incentive to prevent extinction southern white rhinos are doing very well. I mean, it's like you don't understand the very basis of our food pyramids with our livestock populations. Collectivization starved millions. How about you institute the same old policies for our food supply? See how quickly livestock numbers tumble. Leaving the national parks alone would also allow the species within them to have a stable growing population with even fewer animals being shot by humans. I really don't understand how you're not getting into this. I want us to be killing none of the animals. You're arguing for killing some of the animals. Your argument for killing some of the animals is that it's better than killing all of the animals and this means that you care more about the animals than I do. Also you seem to think that I want to collectivise the Ukrainians, possibly in Namibia. Honestly it's really not clear at this point what the hell you're talking about, although I'm not sure what to expect from a guy who thinks that bullets help animal populations.
Since you're beyond daft.
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
|
United States42014 Posts
On July 30 2015 02:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 02:50 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2015 02:45 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:39 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2015 02:36 Wegandi wrote:On July 30 2015 02:30 KwarK wrote:
The fact that selling the rights to hunt to rich white foreigners is somewhat more successful than opening the national parks to everyone who wants some ground rhino horn doesn't mean it's a good outcome. All it means is that they have conceded that they lack the power to protect their national resources the way that they would want to and have decided to make a deal with the devil.
I reject the argument of "it's better than the worst imaginable outcome and therefore it's good and therefore we shouldn't consider other options". Somewhat? The old policies weren't successful - they were a huge whooping disaster! Oh yeah, the obvious socialist drivel about 'deal with devils (capitalism)' non-sense. Again, this is the classic case as referred to before. You guys are all so transparent elitists. The animals don't matter. It's all about intentions and demagoguery. What on earth are you talking about? Of course the animals matter. Your argument is that killing some animals is good because it's better than killing every single animal which is what was happening before. My argument is that while leaving some alive is better than killing all of them there is still room for improvement towards killing none of them. That killing some of them, while a relative improvement, is not good simply because there is room for it to get worse. You're literally advocating the killing of the animals and then declaring that you're the one who cares about them and I think they don't matter. That's some crazy high level doublethink you have going on there. Because trophy tourism allows the conservatories to do what they're intended to do - provide a stable growing population, as well as provide incentive to keep it that way. You are so ignorant of reality it's hard to fathom anyone being more oblivious. Of course it's not about the animals. You think the old socialist policies that nearly led to the extinction of these animals was successful. That to me tells me you don't give a shit about the animals. Because of capitalisms incentive to prevent extinction southern white rhinos are doing very well. I mean, it's like you don't understand the very basis of our food pyramids with our livestock populations. Collectivization starved millions. How about you institute the same old policies for our food supply? See how quickly livestock numbers tumble. Leaving the national parks alone would also allow the species within them to have a stable growing population with even fewer animals being shot by humans. I really don't understand how you're not getting into this. I want us to be killing none of the animals. You're arguing for killing some of the animals. Your argument for killing some of the animals is that it's better than killing all of the animals and this means that you care more about the animals than I do. Also you seem to think that I want to collectivise the Ukrainians, possibly in Namibia. Honestly it's really not clear at this point what the hell you're talking about, although I'm not sure what to expect from a guy who thinks that bullets help animal populations. Since you're beyond daft. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
The argument is "yes, if you get a shitton of money from the trophies and use that to protect the other animals from poaching". So it actually supports my argument, not yours. But don't let that bother you and your magic healing bullets of population growth.
|
It's also obviously false to state that because trophy hunting is (somewhat) legal, all poaching is magically stopped. As an opinion piece from The Guardian quite eloquently put it: if the hunters are at all concerned with conservation, what they should do is bid those same 50,000 USD, but then NOT SHOOT.
It's clear that while there are obvious benefits from the trophy hunting to conservation of the wildlife preserves, the hunters themselves are not very concerned with conservation (if they truly were, they would do as above: not shoot specimens of endangered species). Therefore making a deal with hunters in order to get (sorely needed) money for conservation can quite justifiably be called a deal with the devil. It just happens to be a deal with the devil that works (sort of).
Unfortunately the national parks in most of Africa (even high profile ones like Tanganyika and Serengeti) are extremely poorly funded, and stopping poachers requires a LOT of money. Hence why things like auctioning off hunting permits works: they bring in money. The only public nature reserve that can credibly be claimed to have enough money to actually protect the animals in its environment is the Kruger park, and that is more due to historical reasons. Other amazing parks, like Hwange or Chobe simply do not attract enough tourists to fund the conservation in that manner.
|
On July 30 2015 02:54 KwarK wrote:
Clearly I'm an elitist for thinking maybe the animals can work out how to breed themselves without the intervention of the white man's bullets. God knows how they made it all those years before we came along.
That isn’t always possible, since one of the things that kept their populations in control were predators that humans cannot co-exist with. I am all for keeping a lot of wolves around, but not in massive numbers. Moose have no natural predators any more and don't fear humans. They are also bigger than a car and give zero fucks about anything.
There are some animals we don't place nice with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
