Hunter Becomes the Hunted: Elephant kills its hunter
129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47553460]It said he was a professional hunter; his profession was hunting. This was his livelihood, the same as those who hunt deer and ducks to harvest their resources such as meat or hides to sell. One is not more immoral than the other.[/QUOTE]
A lot of elephant species are officially listed as endangered (although barely) while ducks and deer are not.
That's the key for me.
Rest in peace.s
People rating this winner are scum.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47553566]It really is a shitty situation, but I don't think that means this man deserves to die.[/QUOTE]
Nobody deserved to die – but he did and that's alright. That's just the natural order of things. In nature there do exist prey who defend themselves from predators; this is no different. The elephant won and he won fair and square.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47553396]This was a legal hunt. Elephants are not endangered. This is like cheering the death of a deer or duck hunter.[/QUOTE]
It was not illegal, but it was immoral.
[editline]19th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47553460]It said he was a professional hunter; his profession was hunting. This was his livelihood, the same as those who hunt deer and ducks to harvest their resources such as meat or hides to sell. One is not more immoral than the other.[/QUOTE]
Let's flip that around a bit.
"It said he was a professional assassin; his profession was killing. This was his livelihood, the same as those who fight criminals to protect the societies they live in. One is not more immoral than the other."
See how that doesn't work?
[editline]19th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;47553562]Legal western hunters are a major reason that animals like elephants aren't hunted to a head by poachers. They pay for the wildlife reserves. They pay for nearly everything. These animals are in Africa, do you think the government in Zimbabwe could afford to keep them protected by their lonesome? Unless poachers decide to stop poaching, and Africa develops a strong economy, elephants have to die if elephants are going to live.
Their populations are closely monitored and only as many tags as can safely be issued are issued. At no point is the survival of this species threatened by legal hunting in the modern world.
If you value the life of any wild animal over that of a fellow human being, I pity you.[/QUOTE]
What's to say that they can't do the same thing without issuing hunting licenses? Eco-tourism is a very real thing and arguably much higher volume than hunting tourism.
He wanted to get a closer look at the ivory and he did.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;47554292]It was not illegal, but it was immoral.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;47554292]What's to say that they can't do the same thing without issuing hunting licenses? Eco-tourism is a very real thing and arguably much higher volume than hunting tourism.[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
Option 1: The government gets paid by hunters to cull overpopulated elephant herds. The government gets paid. The hunter gets their trophy. The country gets tourism. Everybody wins.
Option 2: The government pays [URL="http://pri-113a.kxcdn.com/sites/default/files/story/images/kenya-rangers3.jpg"]these guys[/URL] to go gun down a few with assault rifles.
What the sweet merciful fuck is morally better about option 2 here? Getting hunters to perform an ecologically necessary public service on behalf of the government not even for free, but actually [I]paying for the privilege[/I], is the most win-win scenario possible.
These are [I]not[/I] endangered subspecies being hunted. They are excessive local populations being culled to prevent the massive damage that herds of elephants can cause. They've tried relocation- too expensive. They've tried contraception- doesn't work. Killing the elephants is the last resort but if they can do what they have to and make money at the same time, then what's what has to happen.
This is nothing like tourists wanting to hunt lions or rhinos. They're not targeting endangered species, and they're not killing harmless animals or damaging the ecology as a dick-waving exercise. Elephants can be extremely destructive in numbers, and the people who actually live with and around them know that. The bleeding heart 'oh no how could you do this' reactions come mostly from people who have never seen the effects elephants have in the wild, let alone feared for their lives and livelihoods at the hands of an aggressive herd.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47553419]i suggest you read this
[url]http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/african-elephant[/url]
they are vulnerable, they're not like deer.
[url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140818-elephants-africa-poaching-cites-census/[/url]
i don't think so.[/QUOTE]
you're using the wrong statistics
those stats apply to [I]central[/I] africa, which is losing elephants
this hunter was in [I]southern[/I] africa, which has an overabundance of elephants
And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them. Even if there were plenty of native Americans and this wouldn't impact how many were left, it's still killing a person, or in the elephant's case, an animal which is one of the closest to humans in terms of intelligence out there. I find that morally reprehensible but that's just me.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47553445]Except deer and duck hunters harvest the bodies of their kills to eat. This was just some rich piece of shit who wanted to kill things for fun.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, people shoot loads of animals in America or Britain for the sheer sport value. I mean yeah people eat them, but it's expensive and time consuming and not really the primary reason people hunt. Hunting in general now is pretty much because people have fun doing it, and a lot of the shit that gets shot (foxes, badgers, raccoons, etc) isn't even eaten. In Britain it's a common view that pretty much anybody who hunts is a "rich piece of shit", regardless of what they do.
It's the same with elephants. They're big bastards that can be pests, and from time to time do actually need to be controlled in some way (shooting them just happens to be one of them).
[editline]19th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47554919]And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them. Even if there were plenty of native Americans and this wouldn't impact how many were left, it's still killing a person, or in the elephant's case, an animal which is one of the closest to humans in terms of intelligence out there.[/QUOTE]
You're using a very dishonest argument here and I find it morally reprehensible.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47554919]And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them.[/QUOTE]
Completely non-comparable
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47554919]And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them. Even if there were plenty of native Americans and this wouldn't impact how many were left, it's still killing a person, or in the elephant's case, an animal which is one of the closest to humans in terms of intelligence out there. I find that morally reprehensible but that's just me.[/QUOTE]
do we raise native americans to eat them too
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47554919]And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them. Even if there were plenty of native Americans and this wouldn't impact how many were left, it's still killing a person, or in the elephant's case, an animal which is one of the closest to humans in terms of intelligence out there. I find that morally reprehensible but that's just me.[/QUOTE]
You probably find it morally reprehensible because judging from that comparison, you have no idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47554919]And those of you talking about "legal hunts" and "paying for reservations" yeah let's set up a program where we fund native American reservations by giving foreigners guns and licences to shoot them. Even if there were plenty of native Americans and this wouldn't impact how many were left, it's still killing a person, or in the elephant's case, an animal which is one of the closest to humans in terms of intelligence out there. I find that morally reprehensible but that's just me.[/QUOTE]
1. i find your argument absolutely disgusting
2. did you forget that humans weren't just dropped on this planet, that we are indeed animals with a specific place in the ecosystem? do you know how many natural predators elephants have? none. but wait, this is in sub-saharan africa, which is where humans originate from. and humans happen to be the only animal on this planet that can kill elephants and have it not be just luck. would logic not follow that, perhaps, [i]we[/i] are the natural predator of elephants? that maybe, over the course of the millions of years that hominids have been evolving around elephants, that we have always been the way the herds stayed controlled? that, without us, the elephants may have overpopulated, devastated the ecosystem, and gone extinct? we have an obligation to act as predators, the predators we always have been and always will, in order to keep balance in the ecosystem there. yes, without control, we can fuck it up. but that is why it is controlled culling. it isn't just "go out and murder a bunch of 'phants!!", it is carefully regulated and calculated to make sure the elephant populations of the area stay at an appropriate level. to me, it would be even more morally reprehensible to let them breed without barrier, to grow and grow in size until the population can no longer be supported by the ecosystem, and then rapidly die out of starvation, perhaps to the point where bounce back is impossible. we can't just turn our backs on our heritage as animals, as that is just as damaging as uncontrolled slaughter.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47553445]Except deer and duck hunters harvest the bodies of their kills to eat. This was just some rich piece of shit who wanted to kill things for fun.[/QUOTE]
you do realize this was a legal hunt that had to go through scientists and shit to actually happen, right? oftentimes the animals these governments allow to be hunted need to go
Like am I some sort of monster thinking that this was bad?
If there was an almost exist animal and some guy who wants to kill said exist animal hanging on a ledge, and I can only save one. I would have to save that one guy.
I said this before but fp is really weird when it comes to comparing the life of a human and the life of an animal.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47555285]Like am I some sort of monster thinking that this was bad?
If there was an almost exist animal and some guy who wants to kill said exist animal hanging on a ledge, and I can only save one. I would have to save that one guy.
I said this before but fp is really weird when it comes to comparing the life of a human and the life of an animal.[/QUOTE]
There's plenty of humans, and the human in your hypothetical example made the conscious decision to hunt that nearly extinct animal; the animal on the other hand is (presumably) only "guilty" of being a rare--and thus valuable--animal.
Fuck that human; I'd pick the animal every time.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47555421]There's plenty of humans, and the human in your hypothetical example made the conscious decision to hunt that nearly extinct animal; the animal on the other hand is (presumably) only "guilty" of being a rare--and thus valuable--animal.
Fuck that human; I'd pick the animal every time.[/QUOTE]
Quality of Quantity.
It's why we don't give a shit when we kill flies, because they're considered lesser than cats or dogs.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47553445]Except deer and duck hunters harvest the bodies of their kills to eat. This was just some rich piece of shit who wanted to kill things for fun.[/QUOTE]
This is trophy hunting, not just killing for fun.
Jesus Christ, a man [I]dies[/I] and you're all celebrating? Holy fuck.
Don't get cocky, elephants. The woolly mammoths did.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47555452]Quality of Quantity.
It's why we don't give a shit when we kill flies, because they're considered lesser than cats or dogs.[/QUOTE]
I guess I consider the life of an endangered animal greater than the person trying to kill it off to get some money.
Though you bring up a good point that the average human's sense of the value of life is generally tied directly to how something looks.
I think a lot of people confused hunter with poacher.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;47553562]
If you value the life of any wild animal over that of a fellow human being, I pity you.[/QUOTE]
as proud as you must be of that recycled opinion, I'm sure people who care more about their dogs and cats than they do about violent rapists on deathrow, most likely don't need your pity.
Hey if he wants to hunt dangerous animals he should've been more careful in the process of doing it.
I mean can anyone really blame the Elephant?
[QUOTE=Destroyox;47556059]Hey if he wants to hunt dangerous animals he should've been more careful in the process of doing it.
[B]I mean can anyone really blame the Elephant?[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes we can.
Realistically speaking, that animal will be put down now because like several other animals which kill humans, regardless of the situation, they are a problem.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;47553483]Why should it be illegal? It is the same principle as culling deer when their populations get out of control.[/QUOTE]
Actually there is a fairly massive amount of research that goes into maintaining animal populations in the US and Canada. In the US we view hunting as being linked to conservation, because that is exactly what it is in the US. It is why the US and Canada generally do very well at wildlife conservation (of land animals and birds. Please don't murder me, ovb). We don't simply "cull" them when they hit dangerous levels, we issue tags that reduce them down to a level of scarcity that maintains the ecosystem, both for plant life and predators. Nowhere else integrates these two components so completely though. The North American model for wildlife conservation is really quite interesting.
When these other nations issue a tag for an elephant however, they frequently have a financial, and not a conservation, reason at heart. They lack the resources and structure to conduct the necessary research.
It makes me want to play more The Hunter Primal. If you gonna hunt something that can kill you, you better be prepared to die while hunting
[QUOTE=GunFox;47556145]
When these other nations issue a tag for an elephant however, they frequently have a financial, and not a conservation, reason at heart. They lack the resources and structure to conduct the necessary research.[/QUOTE]
And the other times they issue a tag is because it's a bull that's proven to be too dangerous to just let roam free, and then that just simply becomes an issue of protection as opposed to sport/conservation/research
I'm glad that people want to protect elephants, but as a vegetarian I find it pretty depressing that because a pig or cow is less majestic/elephants are not as tasty, most people give no fucks about them being bred to be slaughtered in horrible conditions.
You can make an argument for legal elephant hunting being necessary (although I don't know enough about the situation to comment). The meat industry however is cruel to be efficient, that's the only reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.