|
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. |
On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control.
|
United States43533 Posts
On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control.
And the animals in question are in national parks, not the suburbs.
If you want to hunt a moose go for it. Just don't hunt endangered animals and tell me you're doing it in the name of conservation.
|
On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control.
Ah, the argument that selling the right to hunt the endangered animal is more sustainable than relying on the government fund its preservation. I wasn't aware that one had returned from the ashes. I think it works in theory, but in practice the people that end up getting involved don't give a shit about the animals and just want to justify their paychecks. Its like casinos, which are fine until you add in the people that are deeply invested in gambling.
|
On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control.
Until very recently it was very normal for farmers in Brazil to shoot Jaguars when they could. When I was in the Pantanal a few months back, I stayed a two days with a Pantaneiro; someone who lives in the Pantanal and makes his life there, mostly through fishing and very limited farming (hard to farm in the middle of a swamp). He has had 5 dogs killed by jaguars, and it is something of the last 10-15 years that he has learned that leaving these "pests" alive is better for him than shooting them when he can. Mostlye due to ecotourism in the region: people coming specifically to search for, as the crown jewel upon a South American safari, jaguars. When I stayed in the Andes, again with locals, they were still happy to kill pumas (mountain lions), because of the threat they posed to their flocks of sheep.
The main benefit of trophy hunters (and the even greater benefit of ecotourism) is that the local populace finds an alternative source of income that incentivizes them to keep the wild (possibly endangered) animals alive, because tourists pay big bucks to have a chance to see (or in the case of hunters: shoot) them.
|
On July 30 2015 03:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control. Ah, the argument that selling the right to hunt the endangered animal is more sustainable than relying on the government fund its preservation. I wasn't aware that one had returned from the ashes. I think it works in theory, but in practice the people that end up getting involved don't give a shit about the animals and just want to justify their paychecks. Its like casinos, which are fine until you add in the people that are deeply invested in gambling.
We are talking about a sphere where the government already has, and continues to, fail on an epic scale.
|
On July 30 2015 03:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:44 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control. Ah, the argument that selling the right to hunt the endangered animal is more sustainable than relying on the government fund its preservation. I wasn't aware that one had returned from the ashes. I think it works in theory, but in practice the people that end up getting involved don't give a shit about the animals and just want to justify their paychecks. Its like casinos, which are fine until you add in the people that are deeply invested in gambling. We are talking about a sphere where the government already has, and continues to, fail on an epic scale.
I agree and this could be a source of income to preserve the population. I think if done correctly it could address both the issue of funding and dealing with poachers. I just question if it could be done correctly and if the government/groups involved wouldn’t do harm than good. I always question peoples ability to fail more and don't see the private sector as this amazing solution to all problems.
|
United States43533 Posts
On July 30 2015 03:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 03:44 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2015 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 30 2015 03:37 Plansix wrote: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. We are talking about endangered animals here. Not exactly populations on the verge of getting out of control. Ah, the argument that selling the right to hunt the endangered animal is more sustainable than relying on the government fund its preservation. I wasn't aware that one had returned from the ashes. I think it works in theory, but in practice the people that end up getting involved don't give a shit about the animals and just want to justify their paychecks. Its like casinos, which are fine until you add in the people that are deeply invested in gambling. We are talking about a sphere where the government already has, and continues to, fail on an epic scale.
Partly due to the rampant corruption caused by the willingness of rich foreigners to pay to destroy the natural resources of poor African nations.
Having money from trophy hunting to use to fight poaching is better than having no money and uncontrolled poaching but is still worse than having that money to fight poaching, but also not shooting endangered animals.
If we can't come up with a better way to fund animal conservation of endangered animals than shooting some of them then I guess we have to make a deal with the devil, which is exactly what I said a dozen posts ago, but let's not pretend this is somehow good. It goes not killing any of the rhinos in the natural park > killing some of the rhinos > killing all of the rhinos.
Wegandi was making the somewhat incredible argument that killing only some of the rhinos was the optimal outcome and that seeking to not kill any of the rhinos would force millions of Ukrainians into collectivised farms in Namibia.
|
The reason the private sector would work, if anything can, is you sell all the Rhinos in South Africa to the highest bidder. Then he can, and might, kill them all and sell the horns for profit. But, what you hope is he sees that is foolish, and he can make more money by preserving them for decade and selling them sustainably.
I doubt it will work because the real problem is that most of the countries with Rhinos don't have adequate law and order for someone to have faith in their property rights being upheld. If we moved them to Oklahoma, then it would work very well.
|
So Kwark, I'm not really sure I understand your argument. It's you vs. Wengadi, so I'm automatically inclined to be on your side. That said, are you making a moral argument ("fuck trophy hunters") or a political one ("trophy hunting should be illegal and the parks should scrounge for funds in other ways")?
It seems to me like it would be great if you could get the trophy hunters to just donate instead, but since that's obviously not an option, trophy hunters are a decent source of revenue stream at a (if managed well) minimal cost. I get that hunting isn't everybody's wheelhouse (and safari hunting techniques always struck me as unsporting), but I have a hard time seeing a problem with that, at least legally.
On wolves/moose, in my native Wyoming (hardly the suburbs) this is a very current issue. Wolves can deal serious damage to herds (a major part of the local economy), and aren't particularly concerned with national park/forest boundary lines. So ranchers shoot them. But then the ways that moose have been emboldened are also a real issue, since they are massive, stupid animals that get hit by cars or approached by idiot tourists who don't understand that the animals aren't animatronic.
|
On July 30 2015 04:11 cLutZ wrote:
The reason the private sector would work, if anything can, is you sell all the Rhinos in South Africa to the highest bidder. Then he can, and might, kill them all and sell the horns for profit. But, what you hope is he sees that is foolish, and he can make more money by preserving them for decade and selling them sustainably.
I doubt it will work because the real problem is that most of the countries with Rhinos don't have adequate law and order for someone to have faith in their property rights being upheld. If we moved them to Oklahoma, then it would work very well.
Exactly. The core issue with the problem isn't the proposed system, its that the Rhinos exist in a country riddled with corruption, legal issues and larger problem that Rhinos. And taking money from rich foreigners is only going to line the pockets of the people who are setting up the hunts, not save the animals.
|
United States43533 Posts
My argument was neither rooted in morals nor pushing for a ban on trophy hunting. It was simply that while trophy hunting might be better than the worst conceivable alternative it's still closer to the worst outcome than the best and could not possibly be described as conservation. If you're shooting the endangered animals you're not helping them. Even if you subsequently justify it with "well if we didn't shoot some of the animals then we'd have shot all of them so really I did the animals a favour by shooting just some of them".
It was at this point that he accused me of being responsible for the deaths of millions of Soviet civilians.
|
I am still confused as to how collectivism got roped into the discussion. I read the discussion like five times and it still confuses me.
|
Because endangered species are a classic tragedy of the commons problem.
|
United States43533 Posts
If you don't want to shoot a rhino you are literally Stalin.
|
I was not aware that every tragedy of the commons results in 10 million dead and only the private sector can save them. The internet teaches every day.
|
On July 30 2015 04:31 Plansix wrote:
I was not aware that every tragedy of the commons results in 10 million dead and only the private sector can save them. The internet teaches every day.
Usually its just a trampled field filled with poo :-/
|
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators.
|
On July 30 2015 04:55 always_winter wrote:
Tragedy of the commons is pretty much the opposite of collectivism.
And the killing of a male lion is a bad example of trophy-hunting-collectivism. It puts an entire pride of animals at risk of death from a new patriarch, which is less than great for an already vulnerable species of completely badass and totally awesome keystone predators.
Explain me what makes you say that.
I don't understand how this term ("tragedy of the commons") became a meme, but it's basically a type of goods (the commons - goods that are non excludable but rival) that cannot be efficiently distributed through the market (hence the term "market failure"). The solution you give to this "tragedy" are open to discussion - collectivism can be one of those solutions.
|
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest.
|
On July 30 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:
No. Its a theory that the a person acting in self interest goes against the good of the group by depleting common resources. Its not specifically related to the market, since it can be something as simple as water. Collectivism is the opposite of that environment, where people do not act in self interest.
And this happens why ? Because the goods are commons ?
It create market failure and thus the good in question has to be managed through another way (taxation, law, but collectivisation is another solution). As Garett Hardin explain in The tragedy of the Commons, the specificity of those goods create a tragedy where individuals use those non excludable goods and deplete them.
Common goods are defined in economics as goods which are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types of the most common typology of goods based on the criteria:
whether the consumption of a good by one person precludes its consumption by another person (rivalrousness)
whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it (excludability) [...]
See also Tragedy of the Commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)
But you're right that common goods are not collective goods (that happens to be both non excludable and non rival - like air).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
