I wonder if the term "illegal poaching" is an oxymoron.
matts, as you can see, there's much passion related to this topic. My small self just can't wrap her head around the notion of "hunting" an animal for anything other than survivalism. I get that the fellow's bid is putting money to help other rhinos, but who is anyone to say this old animal deserves to have its life ended because of parameters set by us?
And speaking of wondering, how does this supposed hunt go down? He's an aged animal. Does the hunter just go up to him and shoot? Is a hunt manipulated somehow? What happens to the animal afterward? Skinned, de-horned, photo-ops?
I'm usually pretty rational, but this just doesn't sit well with my sense - granted, it's subjective, but still - of what's right.
Good call on the use of illegal poachers. I'm actually completely indifferent on it. I can see why some people are upset, and I can see the good in it. It brings up the question of killing one to save a hundred. But in the end we are talking about a single rhino that can be sacrificed for the greater good of its species. If it was just any random rhino that was still at a breeding age I'm sure I would have a different outlook on this subject. But this whole auction has A) raised a lot of money to help the animals, and raised national attention for these rhinos. In the end it could be called the greater good?
Either way, but thanks for actually expressing your viewpoint in a coherent way without bashing, name calling, or wishing people cancer.
I wonder if the term "illegal poaching" is an oxymoron.
matts, as you can see, there's much passion related to this topic. My small self just can't wrap her head around the notion of "hunting" an animal for anything other than survivalism. I get that the fellow's bid is putting money to help other rhinos, but who is anyone to say this old animal deserves to have its life ended because of parameters set by us?
And speaking of wondering, how does this supposed hunt go down? He's an aged animal. Does the hunter just go up to him and shoot? Is a hunt manipulated somehow? What happens to the animal afterward? Skinned, de-horned, photo-ops?
I'm usually pretty rational, but this just doesn't sit well with my sense - granted, it's subjective, but still - of what's right.
Good call on the use of illegal poachers. I'm actually completely indifferent on it. I can see why some people are upset, and I can see the good in it. It brings up the question of killing one to save a hundred. But in the end we are talking about a single rhino that can be sacrificed for the greater good of its species. If it was just any random rhino that was still at a breeding age I'm sure I would have a different outlook on this subject. But this whole auction has A) raised a lot of money to help the animals, and raised national attention for these rhinos. In the end it could be called the greater good?
Either way, but thanks for actually expressing your viewpoint in a coherent way without bashing, name calling, or wishing people cancer.
If it's all about doing things for the greater good... then people shouldn't get upset with war, disease, murder, natural disasters, and any other 'population check' given the fact that there are too many human beings on the planet to sustain?
Most are concerned for the loss of animals such as the black rhino... yet here we are serving one up for the right price. In the name of conservation, the auction belies the cause.
And to your last statement... I do believe you made reference to one's grammar and from there... your conversation became uncivil. To boot... you mocked a legitimate point of mine without truly understanding what it was I said. Don't be too quick to anoint yourself as the dignified one here.
With that said... I know what it is like to be in the minority on this board. You are welcome to your opinion.
IThis hunter has single handedly done more for the rhinos in one day than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. And that is including all your posts about how bad of a person he is. Have a good one.
I'm pretty sure, by Chad not shooting and supporting the killing of an endangered species counts for quite a bit towards the 'conservation' of the (this) species.
Also this excuse they seem to be making about how this male is becoming aggressive. Really? So what, it's in their nature, so let it be. We don't need to get involved by killing the beast. "Life will find a way" (Jurassic Park Reference)
We've done enough to destroy them, lets just leave em alone. -
I don't personally know this person. I never knew Ariel Castro either. I can only judge them by their actions.
He travelled to another country to kill an animal for its horn. It's bad, evil, and wrong.
Wow, you just brought up Ariel Castro? In this discussion, over a person who has benefited the conservation of rhinos, in order to hunt one legally? I am sure you feel like you just made some sort of good point? And you ignore the actual issue of poaching... This hunter has single handedly done more for the rhinos in one day than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. And that is including all your posts about how bad of a person he is. Have a good one.
Pardon me?
Outside of the fact that poorer people tend to poach and rich people who can afford expensive licenses 'hunt legally'... what is the difference between poaching and legal hunting? The bottom line is in either scenario a black rhino is killed for its horn.
You strive to foolishly rationalize it, while I don't see any difference... and neither does the rhino.
The fact that you eagerly overlook this man's 'need' to go kill a near extinct animal by exclaiming he's 'helping the cause' is ridiculous. As I said before, if he has that type of money and he's truly interested in conservation... then he would donate the money and go take photographs of the animal instead of killing it like poachers do.
Try again.
Foolishly try to rationalize it? Just because you look at it one way and refuse to look at it in another does not make my view on it foolish. I would say that you are being foolish. It's an animal. It's under consideration for removal anyways. It is not helping it's population to grow. If some hunter wants to pay 350,000 to hunt it, I honestly don't see the big deal, especially when the money is raised to help preserve the animals. In the end it's a good thing. I'm sorry I'm not overly sensitive about losing one rhino to help many others.
And to your other post,
There is a huge difference between one rhino and war and everything else you mentioned. Once you used the name Ariel Castro to try and make a parallel to the hunter that won the bid, I couldn't take anything else you said serious. Kind of like comparing the killing of one rhino to war and population control. It just makes you come across as being a sensationalist and steers the original debate off course; to me anyways. Let's not compare apples to oranges, let's just stick to rhinos. Either way I the one rhino is going to be hunted, and 350,000 grand is going towards protecting the species.
I don't personally know this person. I never knew Ariel Castro either. I can only judge them by their actions.
He travelled to another country to kill an animal for its horn. It's bad, evil, and wrong.
Wow, you just brought up Ariel Castro? In this discussion, over a person who has benefited the conservation of rhinos, in order to hunt one legally? I am sure you feel like you just made some sort of good point? And you ignore the actual issue of poaching... This hunter has single handedly done more for the rhinos in one day than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. And that is including all your posts about how bad of a person he is. Have a good one.
Pardon me?
Outside of the fact that poorer people tend to poach and rich people who can afford expensive licenses 'hunt legally'... what is the difference between poaching and legal hunting? The bottom line is in either scenario a black rhino is killed for its horn.
You strive to foolishly rationalize it, while I don't see any difference... and neither does the rhino.
The fact that you eagerly overlook this man's 'need' to go kill a near extinct animal by exclaiming he's 'helping the cause' is ridiculous. As I said before, if he has that type of money and he's truly interested in conservation... then he would donate the money and go take photographs of the animal instead of killing it like poachers do.
Try again.
Foolishly try to rationalize it? Just because you look at it one way and refuse to look at it in another does not make my view on it foolish. I would say that you are being foolish. It's an animal. It's under consideration for removal anyways. It is not helping it's population to grow. If some hunter wants to pay 350,000 to hunt it, I honestly don't see the big deal, especially when the money is raised to help preserve the animals. In the end it's a good thing. I'm sorry I'm not overly sensitive about losing one rhino to help many others.
And to your other post,
There is a huge difference between one rhino and war and everything else you mentioned. Once you used the name Ariel Castro to try and make a parallel to the hunter that won the bid, I couldn't take anything else you said serious. Kind of like comparing the killing of one rhino to war and population control. It just makes you come across as being a sensationalist and steers the original debate off course; to me anyways. Let's not compare apples to oranges, let's just stick to rhinos. Either way I the one rhino is going to be hunted, and 350,000 grand is going towards protecting the species.
Geezuz man. Again you try to come across like the distinguished agent of discussion. Stop reading your own comments and spend a few moments reading what others are writing.
You snidely asked, "Do you know this man?" Essentially insinuating that because I didn't, I had no right to judge him. To which I responded "I didn't know Castro either" but that doesn't stop me from judging either of them based on their actions. There was no parallel drawn between these two men. There was a parallel drawn to illustrate one can judge another man based on their actions. Read more closely next time.
You seeked to promote the idea of auctioning off the license to go kill a black rhino as positive given 'the greater good' and I used a parallel to illustrate how such logic can be flawed. Do you get to draw the line where someone can or cannot make their point?
Regardless... if you want to stick to the argument? I'll put things as succinctly as possible. Get your head around this (make sure you read carefully):
1. The black rhino is nearing extinction. It is being killed for its horn. The very group that sets out to preserve the animal is now selling the right to kill the animal. If this isn't a compromise of values then I don't know what is. How does one promote the notion of preservation then turn around and sell a ticket to kill the animal it serves to protect?
2. The person that buys the right to kill the animal is not interested in conservation. They are interested in the same item that poachers are. If this person was truly interested in conservation, their $350,000 would be offered without the need to go destroy an animal.
I don't personally know this person. I never knew Ariel Castro either. I can only judge them by their actions.
He travelled to another country to kill an animal for its horn. It's bad, evil, and wrong.
Wow, you just brought up Ariel Castro? In this discussion, over a person who has benefited the conservation of rhinos, in order to hunt one legally? I am sure you feel like you just made some sort of good point? And you ignore the actual issue of poaching... This hunter has single handedly done more for the rhinos in one day than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. And that is including all your posts about how bad of a person he is. Have a good one.
Pardon me?
Outside of the fact that poorer people tend to poach and rich people who can afford expensive licenses 'hunt legally'... what is the difference between poaching and legal hunting? The bottom line is in either scenario a black rhino is killed for its horn.
You strive to foolishly rationalize it, while I don't see any difference... and neither does the rhino.
The fact that you eagerly overlook this man's 'need' to go kill a near extinct animal by exclaiming he's 'helping the cause' is ridiculous. As I said before, if he has that type of money and he's truly interested in conservation... then he would donate the money and go take photographs of the animal instead of killing it like poachers do.
Try again.
Foolishly try to rationalize it? Just because you look at it one way and refuse to look at it in another does not make my view on it foolish. I would say that you are being foolish. It's an animal. It's under consideration for removal anyways. It is not helping it's population to grow. If some hunter wants to pay 350,000 to hunt it, I honestly don't see the big deal, especially when the money is raised to help preserve the animals. In the end it's a good thing. I'm sorry I'm not overly sensitive about losing one rhino to help many others.
And to your other post,
There is a huge difference between one rhino and war and everything else you mentioned. Once you used the name Ariel Castro to try and make a parallel to the hunter that won the bid, I couldn't take anything else you said serious. Kind of like comparing the killing of one rhino to war and population control. It just makes you come across as being a sensationalist and steers the original debate off course; to me anyways. Let's not compare apples to oranges, let's just stick to rhinos. Either way I the one rhino is going to be hunted, and 350,000 grand is going towards protecting the species.
Geezuz man. Again you try to come across like the distinguished agent of discussion. Stop reading your own comments and spend a few moments reading what others are writing.
You snidely asked, "Do you know this man?" Essentially insinuating that because I didn't, I had no right to judge him. To which I responded "I didn't know Castro either" but that doesn't stop me from judging either of them based on their actions. There was no parallel drawn between these two men. There was a parallel drawn to illustrate one can judge another man based on their actions. Read more closely next time.
You seeked to promote the idea of auctioning off the license to go kill a black rhino as positive given 'the greater good' and I used a parallel to illustrate how such logic can be flawed. Do you get to draw the line where someone can or cannot make their point?
Regardless... if you want to stick to the argument? I'll put things as succinctly as possible. Get your head around this (make sure you read carefully):
1. The black rhino is nearing extinction. It is being killed for its horn. The very group that sets out to preserve the animal is now selling the right to kill the animal. If this isn't a compromise of values then I don't know what is. How does one promote the notion of preservation then turn around and sell a ticket to kill the animal it serves to protect?
2. The person that buys the right to kill the animal is not interested in conservation. They are interested in the same item that poachers are. If this person was truly interested in conservation, their $350,000 would be offered without the need to go destroy an animal.
You referred to this person as evil. Everyone knows what Castro did. Big difference. A person that bids to hunt has not been caught with or proven guilty of kidnapping or anything remotely close. He's going to go shoot a rhino, hardly evil. I could use your logic and call you vile and evil, seeing as I don't know you.
I did bring up the idea of the greater good pertaining to this animal species. Because in the end, it is for the greater good for this rhino species. Not the human species, this rhino species.
I fully understand they are getting killed for their horn. I fully understand they are nearing extinction. The thing is that is due to poaching. If this hunter was one of the poachers responsible for their decline in population, I highly doubt he would have spent 350,000 to be able to hunt one. It seems that this hunter is getting the blame and the real reason is being ignored. I don't know how else to put it, but if they can raise that much money to help raise the population and protect them by allowing a hunter to hunt one then it doesn't bother me. Also what seems to get lost here is the fact that the one that is going to be hunted is old and no longer able to breed and help add to the population. Therefore aside from being able to look at it, and count it in the population, it is doing nothing to help further the rhinos population. If it dies of natural causes, or dies from being hunted, the future of the population isn't affected in any way. At least by it being hunted, the future of the spices is going to benefit due to the money that has been raised.
It doesn't matter if the hunter is interested in conservation or not, that's what the money is going for. And since they haven't released any information on the person that won, I hardly think it's right to judge or assume you know anything about the person or if they were interested in conservation. Most safari clubs are actually into and do a lot for conservation. I'm sure the Dallas Safari Club and it's members are no different.
I'm not trying to come across as anything, I'm just simply stating my points. Sorry if it bothers you. Either way, agree to disagree. I have enjoyed this. It has kept me entertained all day and given me something to do while out of town in a hotel for work.
I don't wish to experiment with the quoting feature and misspeak by error.
Just a couple of things:
You said I could use your logic and call you vile and evil, seeing as I don't know you. How? What have I done? If you think speaking against a guy who travels to another country to shoot an endangered animal to take its horn home with him is evil... well... I guess? This wasn't your strongest effort today.
I completely understand the trade off you are in favour of: compromise values and gain compensation that can assist with other efforts. But this is tantamount to shaking hands with the Devil in my books.
I am glad Chadwick and I have afforded you some moments to fill the boredom hotel life can offer.
You know, the fact that this animal is no longer able to breed doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to live out the rest of his life without human intervention. He's not sick; he's being what/who he is.
This greater good concept - in this case - seems incredibly selfish and god-like. Let the poor creature die of natural causes, then...when he's good and ready.
It's not about us.
And for what it's worth, I value what ThirtyBills and chadwick have brought to this discussion - both reflect my thoughts, as well as my disgust.
the fact that this is an endangered species and that someone is allowed to basically buy the right to kill it speaks volumes about how fucked up this whole situation is. if this guy kills one of them, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and i don't give a fuck how much money he spent to purchase that "right". at some point, some things are worth more than money, and to me an endangered animal is priceless.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
ok - here is the bitter bitter truth ... the white and black rhinos are going by way of the dodo bird ... the people we should all be angry at are poachers and the the asians who seek parts of these animals on the black market based on myths ... the other side of that truth is preserving these rhinos is difficult in some parts of africa (like South Africa) because a lot of land where these rhinos live is private ... by the :"money going to conservation" - what they really mean is the money goes to the land owners to make a profit - that profit is the incentive for the land owner to maintain a healthy and possibly growing rhino population ...
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
it is a fucking bullshit loop-hole for some trigger happy little candy ass cocksucker who enjoys his big rifles & has a thirst for safari blood. in other words he is a piece of dog shit. how about leave the critters alone?
ooo he's old & not fucking that means a human has the right to end his beautiful life? horse shit loop holes like this are for low lifes. honestly, i do want the guy dead. that would have me smile big. hopefully hopefully some rhino horns this piece of shit
what of the old rhino not breeding? who cares, leave the dude be. he is on his retirement as an old badass who fully deserves to live out the rest of his natural days in peace with the earth & his fellow rhinos. i bet he can still horn the fuck out of "black death"
watch those videos on youtube... fantastic stuff. some badass rhino repeatedly thrusts his four foot spear up into the guts, lungs & throat of a cape buffalo/black death. it is a eye opener
mr. badass death in black finally breaks loose, strolls away & will slowly die among his herd as they rally around him holding him up.
man needs to stay the fuck out of nature's affairs
ok - here is the bitter bitter truth ... the white and black rhinos are going by way of the dodo bird ... the people we should all be angry at are poachers and the the asians who seek parts of these animals on the black market based on myths ... the other side of that truth is preserving these rhinos is difficult in some parts of africa (like South Africa) because a lot of land where these rhinos live is private ... by the :"money going to conservation" - what they really mean is the money goes to the land owners to make a profit - that profit is the incentive for the land owner to maintain a healthy and possibly growing rhino population ...
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
If the rhino is past breading age, and they can raise 350,000 to help with the conservation of the species, I don't see what the big issue is. Some people like to hunt, it's their thing. And it's for a great cause.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong but I think you may be wasting your breath here. This is a very emotional issue for some. I argued till I was blue in the face in the Lion thread.
My current thinking about all this: Rich macho assholes need to get over their Hemingway fixation and realize he was a great writer but a a fucked up dude who like to kill things. And while they're at it, consider that while they continue to exterminate the remaining large mammals they push another to the brink- homo sapiens.
"Whenever I see a photograph of some sportsman grinning over his kill, I am always impressed by the striking moral and aesthetic superiority of the dead animal to the live one." -Edward Abbey
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't believe most humans know shit about conservation ... there was a provincial park I used to visit regularly about 15 years ago or so in the spring ... it was beautiful ... there was white tail deer everywhere you went ... then someone in the MNR decided we needed a deer cull, you know to many deer. So this cull was carried out by first nations people. The long and the short of the story ... it more a rarity if you see deer in the park now. I stopped going there years ago, my sister in law still goes to the park in the spring but you really don't see any deer any more.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I also know people who live near the park and too this day they maintain far more deer was culled they was intended ... I believ the cull was in terms of length of time, not amount of deer.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If the rhino is past breading age, and they can raise 350,000 to help with the conservation of the species, I don't see what the big issue is. Some people like to hunt, it's their thing. And it's for a great cause.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong but I think you may be wasting your breath here. This is a very emotional issue for some. I argued till I was blue in the face in the Lion thread.
ok - here is the bitter bitter truth ... the white and black rhinos are going by way of the dodo bird ... the people we should all be angry at are poachers and the the asians who seek parts of these animals on the black market based on myths ... the other side of that truth is preserving these rhinos is difficult in some parts of africa (like South Africa) because a lot of land where these rhinos live is private ... by the :"money going to conservation" - what they really mean is the money goes to the land owners to make a profit - that profit is the incentive for the land owner to maintain a healthy and possibly growing rhino population ...
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
Holy shit! Never thought I would read this!
I agree with you by the way.
the things i wrote in the other thread still hold true tho ...
i can accept trophy hunting is a necessary evil but it is still an evil ...
If the rhino is past breading age, and they can raise 350,000 to help with the conservation of the species, I don't see what the big issue is. Some people like to hunt, it's their thing. And it's for a great cause.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong but I think you may be wasting your breath here. This is a very emotional issue for some. I argued till I was blue in the face in the Lion thread.
ok - here is the bitter bitter truth ... the white and black rhinos are going by way of the dodo bird ... the people we should all be angry at are poachers and the the asians who seek parts of these animals on the black market based on myths ... the other side of that truth is preserving these rhinos is difficult in some parts of africa (like South Africa) because a lot of land where these rhinos live is private ... by the :"money going to conservation" - what they really mean is the money goes to the land owners to make a profit - that profit is the incentive for the land owner to maintain a healthy and possibly growing rhino population ...
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
Holy shit! Never thought I would read this!
I agree with you by the way.
the things i wrote in the other thread still hold true tho ...
i can accept trophy hunting is a necessary evil but it is still an evil ...
Shaking hands with the devil.
I can't accept it as a 'necessary evil' even though I get the idea of using it for profitability and advantage.
The contradiction is mind-blowing: the organization geared to protect the animal sells a license to kill the animal.
I can't accept it as a 'necessary evil' even though I get the idea of using it for profitability and advantage.
The contradiction is mind-blowing: the organization geared to protect the animal sells a license to kill the animal.
it's only a necessary evil because of the way the odds are stacked against the rhino population ...
i'm not really trying to justify it either ... it's just that if ultimately we put the health of the rhino population as our primary goal - it is something we may have to live with ...
If the rhino is past breading age, and they can raise 350,000 to help with the conservation of the species, I don't see what the big issue is. Some people like to hunt, it's their thing. And it's for a great cause.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong but I think you may be wasting your breath here. This is a very emotional issue for some. I argued till I was blue in the face in the Lion thread.
ok - here is the bitter bitter truth ... the white and black rhinos are going by way of the dodo bird ... the people we should all be angry at are poachers and the the asians who seek parts of these animals on the black market based on myths ... the other side of that truth is preserving these rhinos is difficult in some parts of africa (like South Africa) because a lot of land where these rhinos live is private ... by the :"money going to conservation" - what they really mean is the money goes to the land owners to make a profit - that profit is the incentive for the land owner to maintain a healthy and possibly growing rhino population ...
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
Holy shit! Never thought I would read this!
I agree with you by the way.
the things i wrote in the other thread still hold true tho ...
i can accept trophy hunting is a necessary evil but it is still an evil ...
I agree, it's fucked up.
I do have a problem with the word evil though, brings the idea of religion into my head. But that's another conversation.
So if I understand this correctly, a man pays a lot of money, to shoot a rhino, the money is for conservation of the rhino. Why does this man pay? So he can shoot some more later on in life?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
Either way, but thanks for actually expressing your viewpoint in a coherent way without bashing, name calling, or wishing people cancer.
Most are concerned for the loss of animals such as the black rhino... yet here we are serving one up for the right price. In the name of conservation, the auction belies the cause.
And to your last statement... I do believe you made reference to one's grammar and from there... your conversation became uncivil. To boot... you mocked a legitimate point of mine without truly understanding what it was I said. Don't be too quick to anoint yourself as the dignified one here.
With that said... I know what it is like to be in the minority on this board. You are welcome to your opinion.
Also this excuse they seem to be making about how this male is becoming aggressive. Really? So what, it's in their nature, so let it be. We don't need to get involved by killing the beast. "Life will find a way" (Jurassic Park Reference)
We've done enough to destroy them, lets just leave em alone.
-
And to your other post,
There is a huge difference between one rhino and war and everything else you mentioned. Once you used the name Ariel Castro to try and make a parallel to the hunter that won the bid, I couldn't take anything else you said serious. Kind of like comparing the killing of one rhino to war and population control. It just makes you come across as being a sensationalist and steers the original debate off course; to me anyways. Let's not compare apples to oranges, let's just stick to rhinos. Either way I the one rhino is going to be hunted, and 350,000 grand is going towards protecting the species.
You snidely asked, "Do you know this man?" Essentially insinuating that because I didn't, I had no right to judge him. To which I responded "I didn't know Castro either" but that doesn't stop me from judging either of them based on their actions. There was no parallel drawn between these two men. There was a parallel drawn to illustrate one can judge another man based on their actions. Read more closely next time.
You seeked to promote the idea of auctioning off the license to go kill a black rhino as positive given 'the greater good' and I used a parallel to illustrate how such logic can be flawed. Do you get to draw the line where someone can or cannot make their point?
Regardless... if you want to stick to the argument? I'll put things as succinctly as possible. Get your head around this (make sure you read carefully):
1. The black rhino is nearing extinction. It is being killed for its horn. The very group that sets out to preserve the animal is now selling the right to kill the animal. If this isn't a compromise of values then I don't know what is. How does one promote the notion of preservation then turn around and sell a ticket to kill the animal it serves to protect?
2. The person that buys the right to kill the animal is not interested in conservation. They are interested in the same item that poachers are. If this person was truly interested in conservation, their $350,000 would be offered without the need to go destroy an animal.
I did bring up the idea of the greater good pertaining to this animal species. Because in the end, it is for the greater good for this rhino species. Not the human species, this rhino species.
I fully understand they are getting killed for their horn. I fully understand they are nearing extinction. The thing is that is due to poaching. If this hunter was one of the poachers responsible for their decline in population, I highly doubt he would have spent 350,000 to be able to hunt one. It seems that this hunter is getting the blame and the real reason is being ignored. I don't know how else to put it, but if they can raise that much money to help raise the population and protect them by allowing a hunter to hunt one then it doesn't bother me. Also what seems to get lost here is the fact that the one that is going to be hunted is old and no longer able to breed and help add to the population. Therefore aside from being able to look at it, and count it in the population, it is doing nothing to help further the rhinos population. If it dies of natural causes, or dies from being hunted, the future of the population isn't affected in any way. At least by it being hunted, the future of the spices is going to benefit due to the money that has been raised.
It doesn't matter if the hunter is interested in conservation or not, that's what the money is going for. And since they haven't released any information on the person that won, I hardly think it's right to judge or assume you know anything about the person or if they were interested in conservation. Most safari clubs are actually into and do a lot for conservation. I'm sure the Dallas Safari Club and it's members are no different.
I'm not trying to come across as anything, I'm just simply stating my points. Sorry if it bothers you. Either way, agree to disagree. I have enjoyed this. It has kept me entertained all day and given me something to do while out of town in a hotel for work.
Just a couple of things:
You said I could use your logic and call you vile and evil, seeing as I don't know you. How? What have I done? If you think speaking against a guy who travels to another country to shoot an endangered animal to take its horn home with him is evil... well... I guess? This wasn't your strongest effort today.
I completely understand the trade off you are in favour of: compromise values and gain compensation that can assist with other efforts. But this is tantamount to shaking hands with the Devil in my books.
I am glad Chadwick and I have afforded you some moments to fill the boredom hotel life can offer.
This greater good concept - in this case - seems incredibly selfish and god-like. Let the poor creature die of natural causes, then...when he's good and ready.
It's not about us.
And for what it's worth, I value what ThirtyBills and chadwick have brought to this discussion - both reflect my thoughts, as well as my disgust.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It will most likely be used to preserve several cases of Dom Pérignon and some cool smoking jackets.
as much as i despise trophy hunting - if it is done properly and the end result is the rhino population survives - i can accept it ... the crux of the problem is that when the motivation is for profit ... what is maybe an altruistic plan gets co-opted for greed which is what we've seen ... not all trophy hunting is done based on science and the health of population as it's motivation ...
ooo he's old & not fucking that means a human has the right to end his beautiful life? horse shit loop holes like this are for low lifes. honestly, i do want the guy dead. that would have me smile big. hopefully hopefully some rhino horns this piece of shit
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Just think at a pre-party if many members showed up in smoking jackets: "Yes. Yes indeed. Three encores is jolly fun!"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
watch those videos on youtube... fantastic stuff. some badass rhino repeatedly thrusts his four foot spear up into the guts, lungs & throat of a cape buffalo/black death. it is a eye opener
mr. badass death in black finally breaks loose, strolls away & will slowly die among his herd as they rally around him holding him up.
man needs to stay the fuck out of nature's affairs
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I agree with you by the way.
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/224765/television-host-melissa-bachman-s-boast-about-lion-kill/p3
Admittedly I don't know very much about this Rhino debate so I'm going to stay out of it.
"Whenever I see a photograph of some sportsman grinning over his kill, I am always impressed by the striking moral and aesthetic superiority of the dead animal to the live one."
-Edward Abbey
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I've had a smoking jacket and smoking pants all this time.
Now I just need to learn how to smoke and I can be sophisticated and awesome.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i can accept trophy hunting is a necessary evil but it is still an evil ...
I can't accept it as a 'necessary evil' even though I get the idea of using it for profitability and advantage.
The contradiction is mind-blowing: the organization geared to protect the animal sells a license to kill the animal.
i'm not really trying to justify it either ... it's just that if ultimately we put the health of the rhino population as our primary goal - it is something we may have to live with ...
I do have a problem with the word evil though, brings the idea of religion into my head. But that's another conversation.
wanting to shoot an animal that is defenseless just to say you did is brutally offensive to me
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee