Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkMagic)
    The guy likes killing for fun and I would bet my life that he also eats meat (probably a lot more than I do). I'm not sure why you're defending him?
    Because without the hunting industry elephants would likely be wiped out across most of their range. This is what people don't seem to understand. Yeah hunters are a bunch of ******s but there is no other way to protect that land, and the animals in it, unless people like you want to pay for it instead. Are you going to do that? Would you pay 40k to stop this elephant being shot?

    People should put their money where their mouth is, if they really want to conserve these animals, if they really care so much, they need to pay for it. Sad truth of the matter. To stop species being wiped out by poaching you need anti poaching units. To make sure species survive in these numbers you need watering holes. To prevent the local community poaching they need jobs. All this costs an absolute tonne of money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I'd have to taste it before I passed judgement! Looks good though.
    ..certainly looks the part. If the price is right...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    This is so sad. It isn't even that he poached the elephant to sell the ivory to feed his family. He did it for pure sickening 'fun'. Dispicable
    If you don't like hunting of animals, fine. Say that. Making out that one particular case is somehow special or extraordinary because a certain elephant is of a certain size does your case no favours.

    There's plenty of evidence out there that regulated big game hunting helps conservation and stabilises populations. That's the debate worth having.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Yeah hunters are a bunch of ******s but there is no other way to protect that land, and the animals in it, unless people like you want to pay for it instead.
    Out of curiosity, do you extend this contempt for hunters to anyone who's ever shot a deer? Or a pheasant? Or, hell, anyone who's ever gone fishing?
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    If you don't like hunting of animals, fine. Say that. Making out that one particular case is somehow special or extraordinary because a certain elephant is of a certain size does your case no favours.

    There's plenty of evidence out there that regulated big game hunting helps conservation and stabilises populations. That's the debate worth having.
    i only highlighted this particular case bc it was on BBC news, i disagree with the hunting of any animal

    i do know that, i made this thread primarily because i was disguisted by how proud the hunter looked.
    if you want to have that debate make a thread about it yourself
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its perfectly obvious there is no real regulation in Zimbabwe, and "unique" animals which deserve better protection are crossing from one reserve to another and getting shot. Tags are being removed in all probability-they're not glued on.. The money paid is not stopping the poaching as the system is systemically corrupt. there is no accountability that anyone cares to trust either. Get rid of the government, put proper democracy in place, get the people working towards nurturing their heritage and who knows.

    Its quite clear from this thread that only hunters, with shares in guns are getting excited, everyone else finds it sick and pathetic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by versari)
    Its perfectly obvious there is no real regulation in Zimbabwe, and "unique" animals which deserve better protection are crossing from one reserve to another and getting shot. Tags are being removed in all probability-they're not glued on.. The money paid is not stopping the poaching as the system is systemically corrupt. there is no accountability that anyone cares to trust either. Get rid of the government, put proper democracy in place, get the people working towards nurturing their heritage and who knows.

    Its quite clear from this thread that only hunters, with shares in guns are getting excited, everyone else finds it sick and pathetic.
    Zimbabwe had a proper government... when it was Rhodesia.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Out of curiosity, do you extend this contempt for hunters to anyone who's ever shot a deer? Or a pheasant? Or, hell, anyone who's ever gone fishing?
    I'm a little biased as all the hunting people I know are awful and definitely overcompensating for something...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I'm a little biased as all the hunting people I know are awful and definitely overcompensating for something...

    ...think we all know what both those things they are overcompensating for might be. (real men join the army)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I'm a little biased as all the hunting people I know are awful and definitely overcompensating for something...
    Are they tories?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    Are they tories?
    Some, not all. Mainly they just want to kill everything to look really macho.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nasty sick wastemans

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    i only highlighted this particular case bc it was on BBC news, i disagree with the hunting of any animal

    i do know that, i made this thread primarily because i was disguisted by how proud the hunter looked.
    if you want to have that debate make a thread about it yourself
    The look of pride on the face of the hunter doesn't really impact on the animal's welfare at all, so I'd consider it pretty irrelevant. Indeed the lot of a wild animal who is shot is exponentially better and more natural than any of the thousands of animals in the UK raised for slaughter.

    The problem, I would suggest, is that you want to discuss animal rights with only a passing consideration of the animals concerned. In any rational case, they should be central.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by versari)
    Its perfectly obvious there is no real regulation in Zimbabwe, and "unique" animals which deserve better protection are crossing from one reserve to another and getting shot.
    That's a lot of woolly-minded nonsense. Either all animals "deserve" a level of protection, or they don't. If you're going to frame the discussion in terms of something being owed to an animal, it is ludicrous to suggest that it is only owed to those who are in some way special or unique.

    Ultimately if you want to say we should preserve and protect certain animals because of their attributes - longer tusks or whatever - then fine, but that's a human consideration and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights, suffering or feelings of the animal involved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's a lot of woolly-minded nonsense. Either all animals "deserve" a level of protection, or they don't. If you're going to frame the discussion in terms of something being owed to an animal, it is ludicrous to suggest that it is only owed to those who are in some way special or unique.

    Ultimately if you want to say we should preserve and protect certain animals because of their attributes - longer tusks or whatever - then fine, but that's a human consideration and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights, suffering or feelings of the animal involved.

    No it isn't, you just haven't understood what I stated. What does "Either all animals "deserve" a level of protection, or they don't." mean??? Why is it "ludicrous to suggest that it is only owed to those who are in some way special or unique" that's nonsense. Why do we have world heritage sites then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by versari)
    No it isn't, you just haven't understood what I stated. What does "Either all animals "deserve" a level of protection, or they don't." mean??? Why is it "ludicrous to suggest that it is only owed to those who are in some way special or unique" that's nonsense. Why do we have world heritage sites then?
    I've understood perfectly what you've said - I'm criticising it. I think the sentence you first quote is quite clear in its meaning. In regard to your second question - as I outlined, preserving things for 'heritage' or because of a special attribute is a human concern, it doesn't relate at all to animal rights or welfare.

    Now, conservation of things that interests us is fine and reasonable, but it does not combine well with anti-hunting rhetoric, nor does it consider the positive impact that legal big game hunting can have on the overall conservation of the species.

    My chief objection here is to the many people who try to ride out two separate arguments without distinction: that somehow arguments for conservation support arguments against hunting, and somehow render hunters "disgusting" or whatever else. To argue against wild animal hunting is a pretty extreme position - it should not become conflated with legitimate arguments in favour of conservation, nor should it be sentimentalised by focusing on one particular animal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I've understood perfectly what you've said - I'm criticising it. I think the sentence you first quote is quite clear in its meaning. In regard to your second question - as I outlined, preserving things for 'heritage' or because of a special attribute is a human concern, it doesn't relate at all to animal rights or welfare.

    Now, conservation of things that interests us is fine and reasonable, but it does not combine well with anti-hunting rhetoric, nor does it consider the positive impact that legal big game hunting can have on the overall conservation of the species.

    My chief objection here is to the many people who try to ride out two separate arguments without distinction: that somehow arguments for conservation support arguments against hunting, and somehow render hunters "disgusting" or whatever else. To argue against wild animal hunting is a pretty extreme position - it should not become conflated with legitimate arguments in favour of conservation, nor should it be sentimentalised by focusing on one particular animal.
    But I was not talking about "conservation of things that interests us..." i was talking specifically about protecting endangered or vulnerable animals and not exclusively elephants. I accept all animals deserve a level of protection. You are talking about animal rights which is a separate issue. Where hunting is done for legitimate reasons such as control of pests which would otherwise have detrimental impacts on ecology then I can see a benefit but that doesn't apply here as the elephant is not a pest..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Moronic and pathetic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    To argue against wild animal hunting is a pretty extreme position - it should not become conflated with legitimate arguments in favour of conservation, nor should it be sentimentalised by focusing on one particular animal.
    I certainly don't think it is an "extreme" position. If anything, it's seems like a fairly standard line to take. In the same way that well-publicised animal cruelty incidents always prompt outrage and widespread alignment with animal rights ideals, hunting cases like this elephant and the previous lion fiasco produce similar, typical, results.

    Whilst I appreciate the rationale behind the outrage is usually fairly linear, and arguably quite naive, I think the reflexive nature of the response points to a greater, unconscious understanding that unprovoked killing shouldn't be acceptable.

    Unfortunately, when people start unpicking the "unprovoked killing" package, they find it totally inconsistent with their lifestyles and end up abandoning it as a blanket policy. The result is having to begin distinguishing between cases that really aren't any different from each other (chicken curry from Tesco vs £39k elephants).

    Personally, I think this kind of moral conversation should be happening in an entirely different sphere to the "conservation" discussions. The merits of what we're conserving, and at what cost, should probably be distinct from ideas about animal rights.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calpurnia)
    I certainly don't think it is an "extreme" position. If anything, it's seems like a fairly standard line to take. In the same way that well-publicised animal cruelty incidents always prompt outrage and widespread alignment with animal rights ideals, hunting cases like this elephant and the previous lion fiasco produce similar, typical, results.

    Whilst I appreciate the rationale behind the outrage is usually fairly linear, and arguably quite naive, I think the reflexive nature of the response points to a greater, unconscious understanding that unprovoked killing shouldn't be acceptable.

    Unfortunately, when people start unpicking the "unprovoked killing" package, they find it totally inconsistent with their lifestyles and end up abandoning it as a blanket policy. The result is having to begin distinguishing between cases that really aren't any different from each other (chicken curry from Tesco vs £39k elephants).

    Personally, I think this kind of moral conversation should be happening in an entirely different sphere to the "conservation" discussions. The merits of what we're conserving, and at what cost, should probably be distinct from ideas about animal rights.

    I mostly agree...and what Lib overlooks is It is impossible to live without killing "something" which has "life" so it all boils down to priorities in the end. Pointless killing, however, is exactly that.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 20, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.