- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,050
- Reaction score
- 19,728
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Yep he is full of those.that's a really stupid comment
Yep he is full of those.that's a really stupid comment
do you think they would do something that hurts the herd?
While some are berating the Namibians for their wildlife management practices, let's remember that both in the United States and Canada we do the exact same thing. Each of our governments in their various jurisdictions issue licenses to hunt all kinds of wildlife at various times of the year, in various locations, and mostly it is to manage the size and health of each species. These licenses, in large part, fund the work of conservationists and environmentalists and the government departments that manage them. Without licenses to fish and hunt, wildlife in North America would be in danger and our society would also be in danger in many places. It's a delicate balance and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I don't begrudge the Africans for doing likewise and I wish them well in their endeavours.
Very first line in the thread but I'm not surprised you didn't read it. So I will paste it here for you.
Well not the shooting part that was about culling a sterile male. Please tell me again how you failed to read the op.
Yes.
So how about the rhinos that are killed?
Yes we do that. Nature has a natural way of balancing out, but we've completely ****ed up the balance in many cases. With deer, we've taken up a lot of their habitat all the while eliminating many of their predators. So, of course, in order to eliminate the surplus of deer, we have culls. And so on.
Yes.
So how about the rhinos that are killed?
This was all about the thrill for the hunter. I wish people wouldn't pretend that he did this to advance the survival of the species or for some positive reasons. It's dishonest. This was a trophy hunt, nothing more and nothing less.
Good morning TB,
You're only looking at one side of the equation. Of course the hunter did it for his own personal reasons. Why else pay $350,000 if not for the experience and the thrill? But the other side of the coin is the Namibian conservationists and species management specialists. They saw a need to eradicate one animal from a herd in order for the herd to expand and prosper and they saw a way to acquire much needed dollars for their programs in order to do it. It's nothing different from what we do here in North America. When deer or black bears or coyotes or whatever get to a point where they need to be culled to better manage, we issue licenses to hunters to do the work for us rather than spend $millions to have government employees do it. In effect, we hire people who pay us to do the work for us. In a sense, it's brilliant and self perpetuating. One of the few things I'd say government here does well. I can't criticize the Namibians for doing likewise.
Well I found that fact in three articles in one Google search. So no, I'm going by what was actually reported.LOL... so we quote members now to make our points? LOL So basically, if a member here says that homosexuality is made-up, then I can quote him/her to make a point? Stop it, my sides are hurting!!!
Washington post said:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/21/the-texas-hunter-who-paid-350000-to-kill-an-endangered-black-rhino-has-bagged-his-prey/
The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.
Fox8 said:http://fox8.com/2015/05/20/hunter-pays-350000-to-kill-endangered-black-rhino/
Rhinos are intensely territorial and will often kill each other in gruesome fights.
Knowlton is targeting one of four black rhinos at the top of the government list, the ones considered “high priority threats to the herd.”
Pix11 said:http://pix11.com/2015/05/20/hunter-pays-350000-to-kill-endangered-black-rhino-in-namibia/
Knowlton’s hunt targeted a specific rhino — one of four — that was considered a high-priority threat to the herd. Last year, the rhino killed another bull in a gruesome fight.
Well read the op next time and Google the story to verify. You failed to do that so you don't have all the facts.I read the article that was linked, so it's not my failure. No where did it say anything about the rhino, besides the fat that it was a rhino.
The rhino was apparently an old rhino that no longer bred but was chasing off other potential male mates. I understand the reasoning, but I feel like they should have just moved it instead of killing it. The hunting of these animals should not be encouraged under any circumstances. Efforts to save endangered species should be getting enough funding without relying on hunters willing to pay top dollar to kill these animals.
Hunter pays £225,000 to shoot black rhino: 'I believe in survival of species' | Environment | The Guardian
A US hunter who paid $350,000 (£225,000) to kill a black rhino in Namibia has successfully shot the animal, saying his actions would help protect the critically endangered species. Corey Knowlton, from Texas, downed the rhino with a high-powered rifle after a three-day hunt through the bush with government officials on hand to ensure he killed the correct animal. Knowlton, 36, won the right to shoot the rhino at an auction – attracting criticism, and even death threats, from conservationists. He took a CNN camera crew on the hunt to try to show why he believed the killing was justified. “The whole world knows about this hunt and I think it’s extremely important that people know it’s going down the right way, in the most scientific way that it can possibly happen,” Knowlton told CNN. “People have a problem just with the fact that I like to hunt … I want to see the black rhino as abundant as it can be. I believe in the survival of the species.” Since 2012, Namibia has sold five licences a year to kill individual rhinos, saying the money is essential to fund conservation projects and anti-poaching protection.
This was all about the thrill for the hunter. I wish people wouldn't pretend that he did this to advance the survival of the species or for some positive reasons. It's dishonest. This was a trophy hunt, nothing more and nothing less.
Wrong.
If you don't like what someone is saying don't listen to them. :roll:
" The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
Well I found that fact in three articles in one Google search. So no, I'm going by what was actually reported.
Well read the op next time and Google the story to verify. You failed to do that so you don't have all the facts.
How immature. You could simply admit that you were wrong:doh :lamo :screwy: :failpail:
How immature. You could simply admit that you were wrong
sucks to be them but given how most animals die-probably a lot less pain
Good morning Middle - hope all it well,
Not to be disrespectful, but what you state is the problem with most environmentalists and animal rights proponents. You blame man for encroaching on natural habitats without acknowledging that man is, in effect, a natural predator of every other species on the planet. But even as predators, man is the only one with the capacity to mitigate our footprint in ways such as licensing hunts and culling of wildlife that has benefited from our encroachment. I'd say, generally speaking, that those closest to nature are also those most respectful of nature. They live with and support nature every day, not just marching in some protest in a concrete jungle miles from nature. Listening to some environmentalists and conservationists, I'd swear they'd gladly support a human cull rather than license the shooting of any deer.
Canada is a responsible partner with nature - that's all we can hope, realistically, to be.
Never in my life will I understand the boner one gets when one shoots an innocent animal so they can put their heads on a plaque and hang them in a room with other like trophies. I don't see how anyone can think it's something to be proud of... unless the other animal had a gun too.
Never in my life will I understand the boner one gets when one shoots an innocent animal so they can put their heads on a plaque and hang them in a room with other like trophies. I don't see how anyone can think it's something to be proud of... unless the other animal had a gun too.
It will of course seem stupid if you do not share my perception on this matter. I am not a human supremacist. I do not consider our species to be most special or unique organisms on this planet, and, in fact, we are actually inferior in many respects. This is especially true when we consider the senses, adaptability, and sheer power of many animals. That we think of ourselves as the pinnacle of everything is the result of social conditioning rather than facing reality.Yep he is full of those (stupid comments).
Here is another pathetic attempt to understand my perspective. "Turtledude" lays out several species that are constantly stereotyped as pests and undesirable creatures of the animal kingdom. Prejudice is his friend here. He belittles my position, of course, by implying that I care more for these creatures than I do humans. Who cares if these animals possess intelligence and capacities for pain and emotion (especially the rat)?! They're ugly! They need to be eradicated. And certainly the animal rights movement as a whole focuses on more than just these four species, and is dedicated to showing how animals have similar interests to our own, not that they matter more or less than human beings... Clearly he knows very little about this actual movement.you are right-I do put humans ahead of say mosquitos, ticks, highly venomous spiders, sewer rats and other things I kill as fast as I can
They are all equal in having the capacity to suffer and that they strive for happiness, and this is hardly disputable.That doesn't make them equal.
No our higher intelligence makes us higher life forms.
It will of course seem stupid if you do not share my perception on this matter. I am not a human supremacist. I do not consider our species to be most special or unique organisms on this planet, and, in fact, we are actually inferior in many respects. This is especially true when we consider the senses, adaptability, and sheer power of many animals. That we think of ourselves as the pinnacle of everything is the result of social conditioning rather than facing reality.
Here is another pathetic attempt to understand my perspective. "Turtledude" lays out several species that are constantly stereotyped as pests and undesirable creatures of the animal kingdom. Prejudice is his friend here. He belittles my position, of course, by implying that I care more for these creatures than I do humans. Who cares if these animals possess intelligence and capacities for pain and emotion (especially the rat)?! They're ugly! They need to be eradicated. And certainly the animal rights movement as a whole focuses on more than just these four species, and is dedicated to showing how animals have similar interests to our own, not that they matter more or less than human beings... Clearly he knows very little about this actual movement.
They are all equal in having the capacity to suffer and that they strive for happiness, and this is hardly disputable.
How you measure equality is through the intelligence of others obviously. I would ask where the line is for that? How much "intelligence" must an organism have in order for you consider them equal? Do all humans possess the same amount of intelligence? Is it possible that there are some animals that exceed the intelligence of human beings such as infants or the mentally disabled?