First the frogs turned gay and now this
Submitted 2 weeks ago by Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com to [deleted]
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/db21eca8-c37f-4918-bc7d-f7719a3549ec.webp
Comments
thesohoriots@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
CITIZEN SNIPS!
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
cattywampas@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So the bull says “Rectum? I nearly killed him!”
blarghly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Although many disagree with big game hunting all Ernie’s hunts were strictly licensed and above board and were registered as conservation in culling animal numbers
Nothing here really indicates that the guy was a bad person, other than some vague categorizations like “he was rich” or “he was a hunter”.
I can’t say anything about his deeds or misdeeds as a rich guy. But I feel like there should be some context added about big game hunters - namely, that they are important to conservation efforts.
Sport hunters realized probably 100 years ago that unchecked hunting of their quarry would soon lead to the extinction of such species, and thus, the extinction of their sport. Hence, they were a big part of the early conservation efforts of the early 20th century, and typically continue to be big (and organized) advocates of conservation efforts today - supporting the protection of ecosystems and public lands.
Of course, this isn’t to say hunters, as individuals or as a group, are without their flaws. You would likely find more than a few climate skeptics in their ranks. But it seems to me that someone who goes out to interact with nature regularly would be a far more sympathetic ear to being swayed than their cousin Jim Bob who just sits on the couch all day watching Fox News.
In particular, there seems to be an idea that hunters are some sort of bloodthirsty killers. But most hunters will explain that they do a lot to limit animal suffering by lining up precise shots and using bullets or arrows designed to kill as quickly as possible. While most hunting done in developed nations these days is done for sport, the hunters do still eat the meat, and they are quick to point out that this is probably the most ethical way to get meat - from an animal who was able to live a good life in a natural habitat, and which then died instantly. Far better than the cow which lived its whole life in a tiny feed lot up to its knees in shit before it was turned into a hamburger. And if you ask them why they hunt, they will talk about spending time in nature, spending time with friends, and feeling like they are taking part in the circle of life in a way humans have been since we roamed the African savannah.
And on a practical level - almost every natural area in the world needs hunters in order to control animal populations. In most areas, apex predators have been brought to near extinction by a number of factors - mostly the destruction of large contiguous areas of habitat for the purposes of farming. The result is an explosion in the population of prey species, which will then have negative impacts on the environment as a whole by overpopulating and overfeeding. Thus there is a need to regularly cull herds. We could pay land managers to do this themselves, of course. But why do that when there is a population of sport hunters willing to pay to do the job for you?
Which brings us to big game hunting in Africa. Africa, you may have heard, is poor. While conditions are improving, Africa remains one of the biggest hotbeds of world poverty, and it is currently undergoing a massive population boom. And adjacent to these populations of desperately poor people, you have the last strongholds of some of the most incredible species on Earth. I have a friend who regularly travels to Africa to help with a small NGO he is affiliated with. As he tells it, the attitude of the average local is “I think they should kill all the lions. They eat people.” They think the land would be better used for more farms or more housing, and see poachers as just doing some honest work. African governments are similarly not very interested in protecting these natural habitats - the more democratic ones are typically mostly focused on getting people food, water, shelter, and healthcare on an extremely meager budget. And the more autocratic ones are concerned with pleasing the multinational corporations exploiting their land and quelling populist uprisings. Both the people and the governments must be given a reason to care about preserving their natural environments. An Economic reason. The cold, hard truth is that if you want to save the elephants, you must show the people who control the land that having elephants will make them more money than not having elephants.
Enter: big game hunters. The preserves, of course, get some funding from NGOs and normal ecotourism safaris. But more money is more better, and big game hunters come with money. African preserves face the same challenges as wildland areas in the rest of the world, as apex predator populations dwindle, prey populations increase to untenable levels. They must be culled somehow, so why not let someone pay you for the opportunity? Meanwhile, the apex predators and megafauna themselves will all die eventually. And what is the fate of an aging lion with an arthritic limp? To slowly starve to death, until he is too weak to fend off the hyenas that will tear the flesh from his bones while he is still alive? Auctioning off a hunting license for a dying lion will both shorten the animal’s suffering and result in a big payday for the preserve so they can pay to protect all the other lions from poachers.
The great irony being that whenever we see a news story about big game hunting, the comments inevitably cast the hunter as the villian - when instead, they are an active participant in preserving endangered species and limiting animal suffering. Is this exactly the world we would all like to see? No, not really. But solving problems of shrinking habitats and worldwide poverty will take a while, and protecting endangered species with bug game hunters’ deep pockets is a pretty good solution right now.
Speculater@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There’s one huge caveat to your almost valid points. The vast majority of trophy hunting money doesn’t go to the local population.
blarghly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I mean, I never said it did. I said that money from trophy hunting promotes conservation.
The source you linked seems to have its own bias, in that it promotes Compassionate Conservation, which is more of an ideological argument than a conservation-minded one. I don’t have a problem with taking an ideological stance here, but I think it should be recognized as such. And it seems to me that this organization is telling some half truths in the service of its ideological goals.
For example, the headline of the article is that trophy hunting money is not reinvested in communities. But to me, this is moving the goalposts. If the goal is to preserve lions and elephants and their natural habitat, then it is great if we can do that while also investing in local communities. But if the money flows into the pocket of some local corrupt bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat then posts guards to protect the animals from poachers and doesn’t sell the land to local farmers, then the goal of protecting the lions and elephants has been achieved. This is why I specified that we must make economic appeals to the people who control the land - which is not necessarily the general public. It is also why I specified that we do not live in an ideal world. If the idea of funding a corrupt bureaucrat while the locals around the preserve remain impoverished turns your gut… well, yeah. The world is full of injustices. We can definitely say it would be better if these people benefitted economically - but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding that every single problem in the world be solved all at once while sitting on our couches in wealthy western nations is most likely not a great strategy for achieving any goal.
Later, the article states that an elephant is worth more over its lifetime for tourists to see and photograph than it is worth as a trophy hunt. Which would be compelling if preserves were issuing hunting licenses on random elephants. But as far as I have heard, they don’t do this. The impression I get is that most preserves have strong ties to foreign NGOs which provide both a lot of funding and a lot of oversight. And then of course the preserves themselves know that the elephants being in a lot of tourist dollars by being alive. So of course they aren’t going to issue licenses to hunt young, healthy elephants. As far as I am aware, the licenses for hunting species like elephats are issued to individuals to allow them to hunt a single, specific animal which is sick, injured, or otherwise dying. From an economic standpoint, the animal has already provided the full benefit it would provide to the park for safari/photography money, and now the best use of the elephant is for trophy hunting money. And, again, from a humanitarian view, the elephant is being saved from a slow, painful, and often gruesome death.
So if you want to make an ideological argument against hunting, go ahead and make it. But the arguments presented by your source seem disingenuous to me.
DistrictSIX@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Colonial mindset is strong in this comment. Africans are poor (wonder why?), and kept poor by western elites. Kept in a condition where they have to prioritize eating before conservation. So the same elites who keep them poor, need to come in and give the people a “reason to care about preserving their natural environments”, not by helping the society, but by killing big game for money so they can pose with their trophies.
Also, big game hunters are not bloodthirsty killers, they pay millions to kill animals not for bragging rights, but to help conservation. Just ask Don Jr. They even do a lot to minimize the suffering of the animal, out of the goodness of their hearts apparently, and not because that’s a basic rule of hunting that you have to follow if you wanna keep hunting. Those dumb Africans need sensible hunters to teach them about conservation, don’t you know?
blarghly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll respond earnestly, even if my comment won’t be taken that way.
The point of view I try to adopt is not about who is to blame, but what should be done.
Kept in a condition where they have to prioritize eating before conservation.
Suppose we murder all the evil western capitalist elites keeping them in poverty. Now what? There are still millions of people who cannot be supported by the land via a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farming lifestyle. As Smith wrote more than 100 years ago in The Wealth of Nations, a nation and its people do not gain wealth by extracting things from the ground, but by adopting technological innovations and creating lasting institutions. These things take time. And during that time, the impoverished will still see poaching elephant tusks as a good way to bring their family out of poverty. So what do we do? Well, we protect the elephants until the population is not so impoverished that they gain an appreciation for elephants beyond their economic value.
Meanwhile, the people working at the western NGOs which do a lot of the funding of these preserves (and which have done and continue to do a lot of the work to being average Africans out of poverty) do indeed care a lot about not taking a colonialist stance. But a common problem they run into is corruption. Whether you are digging wells or building hospitals or saving the lions, it is common that any given official at any given level will step in to take their cut. While NGOs will do their best to avoid these losses, they are inevitable to a certain extent. And trying to circumvent or oust government officials would be very, very colonial.
So the NGOs play ball, and generally try to find common ground with the governments and the preserves. Of course, not all Africans are poor and nature-ambivalent, just as not all westerners are colonizers. And typically, the Africans involved with the preserves do care about protecting the animals and ecosystems in them quite a bit. And importantly, the preserves are the ones issuing the hunting permits. The locals who direct, organize, and run the preserves on a day to day basis have determined that from the position they are in right now, yes, they do want to issue these hunting permits. So challenging this issuance seems somewhat colonialist to me.
Also, big game hunters are not bloodthirsty killers, they pay millions to kill animals not for bragging rights, but to help conservation.
No population is a monolith, and people can have multiple reasons for doing what they do. Talk to a hunter in an open minded way about the last hunt they went on, and they will give you any number of reasons they enjoyed it - exercise, fresh air, camaraderie. But also possibly the thrill of the moment they successfully took the shot, and the pride they feel about the trophy they took home. Still, I don’t think this necessarily makes any individual a bad person - hunting is a ritual humans have engaged in since before we were human. And hunting has long been not only a necessity, but a mark of status in indigenous tribes around the world for millenia. Should we also cast an indigenous person who specifically pursues the largest and most dangerous boar near his villiage, so he can boast about his kill and wear its tusks as a necklace, as an evil, frothing, bloodthirsty killer?
Just ask Don Jr.
He also plays golf, combs his hair, and breathes air. The association isn’t a ding against your doctor, who also golfs.
They even do a lot to minimize the suffering of the animal, out of the goodness of their hearts apparently, and not because that’s a basic rule of hunting that you have to follow if you wanna keep hunting.
This is a norm enforced by… other hunters… Who else would enforce it? It isnt hard to go into the woods and shoot an animal in the leg and then torture it to death if you feel like it. There’s not a game warden hiding behind every tree in the forest. Really, the fact that all hunters know about this norm seems like a point in their favor.
Those dumb Africans need sensible hunters to teach them about conservation, don’t you know?
Well, no. The pragmatic and conservation-minded Africans reached a mutually beneficial agreement with the hunters to help fund their preserve, to protect the species there against the actions other Africans might take due to the pressures of poverty, which is a difficult and complex issue to deal with, but in which both Africans and foreign governments and NGOs have been making slow - but steady - progress on for the last half century.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
“We wiped out the apex predators so now we have to be the apex predators” is an…interesting take on justifying trophy hunting.
You could just fund conservation for animals like lions and hyenas in the savanna, and other predators in other environments. It’s better overall, see the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.
blarghly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I mean, this is a broad justification in favor of trophy hunting that applies to bucks in New Jersey as well as it does to antelope on the savanna. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fund and support the reintroduction of apex predators. But, like, it’s complicated.
One of the biggest hurdles is that typically the rural people living in these areas don’t want these predators reintroduced. “Lions eat people” is a very reasonable concern in Africa. Ranchers in Wyoming hate wolves because the wolves will hunt their sheep and cows (though research has shown that this fear is typically overblown). And reintroducing apex predators into areas with a large and porus rural-urban interface (like New Jersey) would create a lot of problems for both residents and the predators themselves. As an example, a small rural town near me has had a rash of mountain lion attacks in the past few years, where the mountain lions would kill peoples dogs when let out in their back yards.
We had a bill proposed in the last few years in Colorado to reintroduce wolves. I was surprised when my friend who is a wildlife ecologist was opposed to it. “Some dumbass tourist is going to try to pet them, get killed, and set the public perception of wolves back 100 years - we need to increase reintroduction efforts along contiguous wildlife corridors in sparsely populated areas, not just where voters are the most liberal.”
So, like, it’s a good idea. But it will take a lot of time and effort, and faces significant political challenges. And in the meantime, we already have a functioning system of hunting for population control.
foenix@lemmy.radio 2 weeks ago
Incredible comment and covered a lot of my personal journey from “hunters are slack-jawed idiots” to “oh shit, hunters have been thinking about conservation for a while”.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If you take a minute to think about it, of course hunters would be interested in preservation. They want a place to hunt and things to hunt. There will always also be the douchebag manosphere style people that just want the biggest sport kill.
chunes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, killing animals is conservation.
Soulg@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Fantastic comment, too bad not enough will read it. The bloodthirsty need their excuse to celebrate killing people they dislike
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
i’m for killing dollar millionaires no matter the context tbh
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
I would like to take every big game hunter, take away their weapon and put them in an arena with the last thing they shot.
Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
I mean, I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but usually the last thing they shot is dead by this point. I think they’d do ok.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Astronut@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Don’t try bringing logic to a dingleberry convention!
Lemming6969@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They usually payhuge amounts of money to support conservation efforts, killing animals that specifically need to be culled. Generally they aren’t poaching
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Sorry, you fell for billionaire propaganda.
Lions (which is the animal in the above picture) and most other big game like elephants, tigers, any large cats etc (so all the animals that are poached by billionaires) never need to be culled. Most of them are actually endangered species and poaching them is highly illegal. Even stuff like antelopes, water buffalos or some zebra specias are endangered.
Stuff that needs to be culled are animals like deer in europe because we have completely eradicated their natural predators and not culling them would completely destroy the ecosystem as they eat young trees which kills the forest. And even that is only done if you have a license and with strict reporting duties.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
its propaganda, most of the big game are already endangered, cats, wild dogs, elephants, etc. especially lions.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Satisfying, but sort of falls under animal cruelty.
Emi@ani.social 2 weeks ago
How much prep time do they get? Or is it just hand to paw combat?
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Hand to paw, no prep time. Just as nature intended.
Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
First the whales, now elephants, keep up the good work guys
socsa@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Come one guys, that dude was a father and a brother.
It’s a shame his family wasn’t there too.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The guillotine blade is sometimes as blunt as an elephants foot.
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
The elephants know.
Them, and the orcas fucking up yachts off the Gibraltar strait lol
philanthropicoctopus@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
I find this discussion really interesting.
The other night i watched Loius Theroux’s African Hunting Party documentary where he goes to Africa and interviews Americans who pay big money to kill wild animals. Some of them endangered i believe. The money made from it goes into conservation to ensure these species are kept alive to keep the whole thing going.
I remember years ago there was a guy who killed a rhino on one of these hunts. People went mental about it. Turns out that rhino was killing baby rhinos and was itself depopulating the already small population of rhino. He paid $350,000 to do it too. Radiolab did a great episode on it here
I have been a vegetarian for the last 15 or so years. I doubt i will ever eat meat again and i most certainly will not eat factory farmed meat every again. In the film, the hunters ask the question “is this worst than buying meat from the supermarket?”. Honestly, i dont think it is, the virtually live in freedom untill they are killed. The conditions of factory farmed animals is much much worse. Im not likely to pick up a gun and start hunting myself anytime soon (unless its a pest) but i thought its an interesting conversation to have.
thethirdobject@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
on the other hand, this small clique of billionaires who think that their money allows them to do whatever they want, including killing protected animals, regardless of ethics and laws, makes me really uncomfortable.
philanthropicoctopus@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
Yeah I totally agree with you. I’m just saying that problem is not specific to hunting animals. Wealth inequality finds its way into most parts of life. But yeah I’m with you
Sektor@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
As someone who eats meat every day and i agree, farm animals should not exist. Let them roam free, i can eat meat twice a week.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That rich dude could have captured and relocated the rhino to a wild life sanctuary instead and donated the money.
MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
And you could volunteer at the homeles shelter.
The way these things work, is that the people working in these places identify problem animals, like infertile males that prevent the herd, or pack or pride or what ever growing, unusually agressive animals, animals with genetic faults that could be hereditary etc etc. Basically anything that could hinder the the population of the endangered or vulnerable species. These animals are hard or impossible to relocate because most places dont want to take these problem animals in, because they generaly are bad where ever they are. I mean what zoo wants lion that kills anything they see or what animal sanctuary wants rhino that kills anything it can catch?
The park rangers could very easily kill the animals them self, but running these animal sanctuarys is very expensive so its better if they find some rich dude that is willing to pay ridicilous amount of money to do it for them.
The rich dude them self isint necessary a philantropist, but the money they spend goes to local economy and is often used for things like security against poachers, vetenarians and infrastructure.
Its easy to think that killing any exotic big game is always bad, but in reality the targets are always chosen carefully.
BreadOven@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
But he was hunting antelope, that’s not as bad though? I’m against that type of hunting regardless, but he wasn’t hunting elephants. Is the antelope population large?
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
This is a good question. “Antelope” is the term they used because he was hunting a yellow-backed duiker. Which is like the Chihuahua of the antelope world, and no one would know what that is. They’re super hard to find, so he likely was out in the bush and got too close to elephants that thought he was a poacher and killed him. Many stressed elephant populations attack any human they see with a gun, even rangers, due to trauma. Also, this guy was a trophy hunter, with a house full of numerous dead animals.
So, in short, this guy needed therapy, not another trophy.
BreadOven@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ah. Thanks for the explanation, makes sense. Also agreed with the last part. If you have enough money to do these things all the time, there’s better causes to use that money on.
Sunflier@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Nature did humans back in the US a favor
WanderWisley@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
what are you doing step-elephant.
Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf 2 weeks ago
In Elephant culture they call this a sick move.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Guys, does one of you have a Death Notebook? Because these deaths are really suspicious. You have submarine accident, bee going into someone’s throat, and… An elephant stampede.
Which genius smart ass is doing this? I owe them all the drinks!
billwashere@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Pretty sure they would never pay for a drink for the remainder of their lives.
Lanske@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Good riddance!
Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The frogs were always gay and if they ever become straight that is a cry for help.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
my fanfiction is that those specific frogs were straight. but seeing as much Alex Jones needed a win they pretended to be gay. Nothing wrong with kissing your homies, and it made Alex Jones happy.
slothrop@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Holy cow that article was 90% glazing this dude.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
True, but you can read between the lines:
The big game hunter had his own private function rooms filled with hundreds of his trophies, including elephant, rhino, bear, buffalo, lion, crocodile, zebra and leopard.
There would be judges, advocates and the heads of the local vineyards and big noises from industry and commerce and it was where all the local networking was done.>
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The frogs are okay with it.
Soulphite@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
frightful5680@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Oh wonderful. Council of Big Elephant 🐘
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
This is not a shitpost.
Beebabe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Indeed. It’s Wholesome.
CelestialImpact@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Good
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Stomp the rich!
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I was not able to find a source I find reliable, but there are many sites that suggest elephants recognize individual humans and recognize guns as threats, and can even recognize a gun pointed at them is a threat. So if someone they don’t know has a gun, and we’ll never know if he aimed one at an elephant for funsies, they may have identified him as a threat and defended themselves by killing him.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
The Daily Mail article says he’d killed elephants before, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Nature is healing
NightShot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Burn in hell cunt !
BurnedDonutHole@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Karma comes for us all… ～(つˆ0ˆ)つ｡☆
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
just like that dentist that “hunted that famous lion” and he went into hiding.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Bravo elephants! I’m surprised it was not a herd of hippos.
Rooskie91@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Lol, animals are starting the revolution because Americans won’t.
Slab_Bulkhead@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
wait a minute, we were told to wait until Bosnia and Herzegovina started.
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
Image
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Image
Soulg@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Lol, idiots talking out of their ass because they know nothing about anything
FosterMolasses@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
Most of the world is well informed, Americans not so much.