Hunter Becomes the Hunted: Elephant kills its hunter
129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562203]No, I'm not. You're saying it's legal to hunt for population control and because the animals cause problems.
How am I missing the point? People are arguing that this population needs to be controlled. There are [B][I]7 billion of us[/I][/B] and I'd consider humans to be an invasive species not unlike a virus, spreading all over and using and destroying the surrounding environment and resources. Nobody and nothing has us in check.
I don't know why we're so worried about one elephant defending itself by killing one person. He put himself in that situation and he paid the price.
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
You built a strawman argument. There's no logic in that, so why would I answer it logically?[/QUOTE]
Ok, we're an invasive species? What are we going to do about it, kill ourselves?
We can manage our resources both current and future to a reasonable extent. An animal without long term planning will overgraze and destroy it's food sources, then proceed to starve to death if there is not a population control mechanism in place. That mechanism is usually predators, Humans destroyed many predator populations and thus are having to step up to the plate in many areas and cull overpopulated areas.
We developed tools that allowed us to act beyond our place in a food chain and eventually act outside it and manipulate it intentionally or not.
[QUOTE=Deng;47562218]Despite your misanthropy, that is not the argument. We are looking at elephants and population control. Should we be allowed to control elephant populations by hunting?[/quote]
No.
[quote]Would you be more upset if the elephant was killed?[/QUOTE]
Yes. The elephant just wanted to exist. He didn't impose this situation on that man.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562227]No.
Yes. The elephant just wanted to exist. He didn't impose this situation on that man.[/QUOTE]
Except elephants are often major pests and dangerous to people, especially when their numbers become unmanageable. What would you suggest in that case?
[QUOTE=deadoon;47562226]Ok, we're an invasive species? What are we going to do about it, kill ourselves?[/quote]
Not sure, that's my point. Everyone is so concerned about population control but ours is completely out of control. All I'm saying.
[quote]We can manage our resources both current and future to a reasonable extent[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but we don't.
A Hunter kiled by the animal he's hunting?
Sounds familiar.
[video=youtube;HuKYvUGYYiE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuKYvUGYYiE[/video]
[QUOTE=catbarf;47553416]African elephants are doing fine thanks to the efforts of several countries, mostly Kenya, in cracking down on poaching for their ivory. South Africa (and a few others IIRC) have culling programs in place to kill elephants when their population in an area threatens the ecosystem or agriculture. Most of these hunting trips essentially sign a deal with local governments (in this case Zimbabwe) to do their culling for them. The country doesn't have to pay hunters to do the cull, and Western hunters get their opportunity to get gored by a bull in musth.[/QUOTE]
I honestly didn't know that. I really thought elephants were pretty endangered.
[QUOTE=Deng;47562231]Except elephants are often major pests and dangerous to people, especially when their numbers become unmanageable. What would you suggest in that case?[/QUOTE]
What number is unmanageable? Why is it up to us to control a thriving species? Nature took care of this problem for millions of years before we intervened.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562234]Not sure, that's my point. Everyone is so concerned about population control but ours is completely out of control. All I'm saying.
We can manage our resources both current and future to a reasonable extent=
Yeah, but we don't.[/QUOTE]
Reasonable extent, and we already are
We are acting in a society where we have a massive surplus of food and basic materials, if needed we could go into rationing it out and cutting the wastage if there was a massive food shortage.
There are areas that are not developed to the point where this is possible, and need to be developed. However since every group acts in their own interests, it is up to the charitable people to deal with those less well off.
[QUOTE=Deng;47562124]Idk if that's justice. Somebody died, and they weren't doing anything really wrong, unless you disagree with the entire concept of hunting.[/QUOTE]
If I was there, I would shoot the elephant and save the hunter. But I don't feel bad for the hunter either, because the elephant has a right to try to defend itself. Does that make sense? I don't think justice factors into this at all.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562247]What number is unmanageable? Why is it up to us to control a thriving species? Nature took care of this problem for millions of years before we intervened.[/QUOTE]
Except the difference today is the presence of a few billion humans, and everything they made, maintain, and use. Elephants are often a serious danger to people, especially those involved in agriculture.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562247]What number is unmanageable? Why is it up to us to control a thriving species? Nature took care of this problem for millions of years before we intervened.[/QUOTE]
We were likely their main predators back then too (I presume you don't actually mean millions because millions of years ago they were basically a different species). Just like with mammoths. We didn't intervene. Also they aren't thriving because elephants developed some new technology to keep themselves safe from their usual predators, they're thriving because we killed all of the shit elephants normally worry about.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562247]What number is unmanageable? Why is it up to us to control a thriving species? Nature took care of this problem for millions of years before we intervened.[/QUOTE]
We are the reason it is unsustainable in that we take out predators that we consider threats to ourselves or our development. We now know the consequences of this and are taking the place of those predators in their absence, and are in the process of fixing our errors.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;47562252]If I was there, I would shoot the elephant and save the hunter. But I don't feel bad for the hunter either, because the elephant has a right to try to defend itself. Does that make sense? I don't think justice factors into this at all.[/QUOTE]
Law of the jungle! Or.. African plains, I guess.
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;47562257]We were likely their main predators back then too (I presume you don't actually mean millions because millions of years ago they were basically a different species). Just like with mammoths. We didn't intervene. Also they aren't thriving because elephants developed some new technology to keep themselves safe from their usual predators, they're thriving because we killed all of the shit elephants normally worry about.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about population control in general, across all periods of existence on this planet.
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Deng;47562256]Except the difference today is the presence of a few billion humans, and everything they made, maintain, and use. Elephants are often a serious danger to people, especially those involved in agriculture.[/QUOTE]
Plenty of room and resources for us all over the planet. Move.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562264]Law of the jungle! Or.. African plains, I guess.
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[B]I'm talking about population control in general, across all periods of existence on this planet.[/B]
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that population control in general previously included a lot of populations out growing what the land can support and then starving? And that that would be kind of an issue for humans if you had a herd of 300 starving elephants looking for food?
[quote]
Plenty of room and resources for us all over the planet. Move[/quote]
I presume you're currently packing your things, demolishing your house, and returning the land to the bears/lions/deer rabbits that owned it before you?
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47553467]Anyone who sees something like an Elephant and thinks, "I want to shoot it to feel cool" is utter scum. Hunters in America that kill deer and ducks and the like have a real purpose. Deer populations can get so high, they start starving to death because there's no food. They (typically) take their kills and process them into lots of meat that they sell or eat themselves.
What did this guy do? Drive up in a jeep, shoot it with a large caliber rifle, take some pictures with the corpse, then drive off? Maybe take the tusks too because ivory is an expensive material?[/QUOTE]
People do not shoot elephants just to see something die. Elephants are hunted for their ivory in their trunks, which is highly valueable. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but you have to understand the drive of a hunter, someone who is trying to survive and make a living, just like you.
You sound like you don't do much research and just make blanket statements because of the way you're feeling.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562264]
Plenty of room and resources for us all over the planet. Move.[/QUOTE]
What? Africa is full of people, and not many of them look likely to be moving.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;47562290]You do realize that population control in general previously included a lot of populations out growing what the land can support and then starving? And that that would be kind of an issue for humans if you had a herd of 300 starving elephants looking for food?[/QUOTE]
You reap what you sow.
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Deng;47562299]What? Africa is full of people, and not many of them look likely to be moving.[/QUOTE]
Then face elephant nuisance, up to and including being trampled for attempting to kill them.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562326]You reap what you sow.
[/QUOTE]
SO we shouldn't try to deal with problems we caused before they become problems?
[QUOTE=deadoon;47562339]SO we shouldn't try to deal with problems we caused before they become problems?[/QUOTE]
I guess so, but every now and then someone is going to be trampled to death. Brings me back to the whole justice argument. We fucked everything up, now we have to murder animals to correct it, sometimes someone's going to suffer the consequences.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562361]I guess so, but every now and then someone is going to be trampled to death. Brings me back to the whole justice argument. We fucked everything up, now we have to murder animals to correct it, sometimes someone's going to suffer the consequences.[/QUOTE]
I guess we shouldn't deal with preventive medicine either. After all, all those things aren't issues to us yet.
There is a problem, why shouldn't we deal with it proactively, rather than reactively?
[QUOTE=deadoon;47562379]I guess we shouldn't deal with preventive medicine either. After all, all those things aren't issues to us yet.
There is a problem, why shouldn't we deal with it proactively, rather than reactively?[/QUOTE]
Viruses and bacteria are rapidly reproducing organisms that aren't sentient.
But maybe we shouldn't because illness is really one of the few things that keeps us in check. And now it can barely do that.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;47562446]sungrazer ur pretty delusional it's honestly baffling
why dont you start doing what you preach and make room in your cozy house for the animals[/QUOTE]
Wild elephants don't live here and I'm not out trying to stem populations of them or any other animal. I do as much as I can for them.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562386]Viruses and bacteria are rapidly reproducing organisms that aren't sentient.
[B]But maybe we shouldn't because illness is really one of the few things that keeps us in check. And now it can barely do that.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh yeah this is all well and good to think about in theory, as this would never be happening to you and the people you care about right? It wouldn't be anyone you know or care about dying a horribly painful death due to a viral infection right? You wouldn't have to make the choice between caring for them in their last days while exposing yourself to the same infection, or letting them die an even more painful death right? And I'm sure it wouldn't cause any social instability in your region which would add extra negative effects to your daily life either right? As long as its happening on some far away continent it feels like good population control right? So what if we don't actually need population control, facts get in the way of how you've decided the world works so they're just unnecessary details, human suffering be damned.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;47562654]it's more your absurd misanthropy but sure whatever[/QUOTE]
Is it really that absurd though?
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;47562635]So what if we don't actually need population control[/QUOTE]
Oh, we don't? We're just allowed to multiply unchecked with no natural predators including microorganisms, devouring everything in our path and leaving nothing useable behind.
I'm not saying I want it to happen, and it's not going to. But objectively, if you're telling me some elephants need to be culled, how do you argue that 7 billion resource devouring humans spread across every reach of the planet do not?
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562227]Yes. The elephant just wanted to exist. He didn't impose this situation on that man.[/QUOTE]
Can I just point out here that the article says they were following the elephant to see its tusks, meaning they hadn't even decided whether they were going to shoot it or not, when it charged out of the brush and attacked before they could react. Not that the outcome is really surprising here but it could just as easily been a group of tourists, the elephant wasn't provoked beyond the presence of humans nearby. Normally elephants don't do that, it was aggressive because it was a bull in musth and it attacked.
[QUOTE=Buck.;47562236]I honestly didn't know that. I really thought elephants were pretty endangered.[/QUOTE]
Everyone thinks this because they were close to endangered at one point due to poaching, and poaching is a serious and ongoing issue, but ever since countries started to crack down on poaching their population has been booming. There are still only about a quarter of the number they sustained before European colonialism, but I don't know anyone who has been to southern or eastern Africa and come back with the impression that they're rare.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47562944]Is it really that absurd though?
[editline]20th April 2015[/editline]
Oh, we don't? We're just allowed to multiply unchecked with no natural predators including microorganisms, devouring everything in our path and leaving nothing useable behind.
I'm not saying I want it to happen, and it's not going to. But objectively, if you're telling me some elephants need to be culled, how do you argue that 7 billion resource devouring humans spread across every reach of the planet do not?[/QUOTE]
As a species, we're no more abhorrent than any other species that has, in the past, broken out of its controls and ravaged other ecosystems. We just do it on a much larger scale. Yes, biodiversity will be lost. Yes, massive amounts of resources will be consumed. Eventually though, things will normalize, one way or another. Either a natural predator will emerge and cull us, a contagion we can't fight will thin our ranks, or we use up the remaining resources and our current, high-energy civilization collapses and reverts to a less expansive state.
Until that happens, we need to make the best go of it we can. If that means culling wildlife so their population stays healthy and fed, so be it. We fucked up their natural controls, it's our responsibility to pick up the pieces and square them away.
My issue with trophy hunting as a form of population control is that often, the most desirable targets are also the fittest of the population. It's inverse natural selection when you implement trophy hunting as a form of population control without also setting and enforcing very strict guidelines on what animals are to be taken. The fact that the hunting group here were stalking the animal to determine the quality of its ivory is evidence that the fittest animals are being preferentially targeted, which is not good for the health of the population in the long run.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;47563127]or we use up the remaining resources and our current, high-energy civilization collapses and reverts to a less expansive state.[/quote]
Probably the most likely scenario.
[quote]Until that happens, we need to make the best go of it we can. If that means culling wildlife so their population stays healthy and fed, so be it. We fucked up their natural controls, it's our responsibility to pick up the pieces and square them away.[/QUOTE]
I can't rationally argue against this, it just pisses me off that it's come down to this.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47563147]Probably the most likely scenario.
I can't rationally argue, it just pisses me off that it's come down to this.[/QUOTE]
It's in our nature. It's in any animal's nature when it breaks free of natural controls.
The only difference between us and other species is that we actually have an inkling that what we're doing might harm both us, and the world we live in. We also have at least a little foresight, enough so that we're taking steps (albeit, halting, inadequate steps) to try to mitigate the damage. It's not enough, but it's more than the world would get from other species.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;47563147]Probably the most likely scenario.
I can't rationally argue against this, it just pisses me off that it's come down to this.[/QUOTE]
It pisses me off too, but what are we going to do? We're on the brink of finally collectively realising, as a species, that we have the potential to completely destroy the world as we know it, so perhaps we'll start seeing some positive change over the next century.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.