I thought this sort of thing died off with Teddy Roosevelt, so it was interesting to learn what kind of people still do it.
How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
291–300 of 334 posts
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it). The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover…
>The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered This is not a commercial big game hunt. >It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot th…
[deleted]
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing hypocritical or even illogical about special casing every single species with varying levels of concern. At some point you have a set of purely irrational axioms about some qualities, be they kingdom, phylum, family, genus, species, or some other subjective criteria for what makes a living creature worthy of consideration when its life is in danger.
If you don't believe there's a rational basis to this consideration, it's hypocritical to criticize somebody else for having a different but no less valid set of qualities he considers.
Not at all. I'm criticizing you for your repeated misuse of the word hypocritical. (And your attempt to equate disagreement with your viewpoint to a failure of logic.) If you can't have a reasonable discussion without name calling, you don't belong here.
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would I be very far off if I would guess that a single photo safari for taking pictures of living elephants would earn more money than the whole village makes in farming the whole year? Maybe they can't afford electric fences, but the GoDaddy guy surely could. Also now I remember in the Zoo they also don't have electric fences. It sounds doable to me - certainly not more effort than for example building those rice te…
Do they even have electrical service in that village - and more specifically in some distant field?
I don't think electricity is needed, just some wall or burrow. Or even just some trees?
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#295Hi All,
Having been involved in wildlife conservation for nearly three and half a decades and trying to address human-elephant conflicts for nearly 16 years what I can say in all honesty is that elephant control is a double-edged sword. There are no utopian answers or solutions to these issues either. When it comes to human-elephant conflicts unlike in the proverbial biblical story where the lion and the lamb lied down together, people and elephants cannot do the same. One has to give away to the other. I think in regard to Bob Parsons’ affair everyone is too focused on what he did on the basis of the moral implications of shooting an elephant as pertinent to western sentiments and emotions and how elephants are perceived in the west. I really wonder how many even paid the slightest attention or took notice of the farmer whose sorghum field was destroyed or gave thought to how he and his family is affected or for that matter the protein starved and raggedy rural masses that descended on the elephant once it was shot. The average Zimbabwean is living in abject poverty and I doubt their perspective of elephants is anywhere close to that of the people of the west. Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival. Since I live on both sides of this divide – I’m fortunate to see both sides of this coin but also it is frustrating because these completely opposing perspectives can be a huge hindrance to addressing these issues in a realistic manner. For example if we can step outside the western mentality box and look at it from a different perspective (from a poor Zimbabwean farmer’s point of view) – probably Bob Parsons is in fact doing a huge favor to the farmers. African elephants are not a threatened species in any imminent danger of extinction. In fact they are now too many elephants in the Southern African nations. But from a South Asian and western perspective Bob Parsons has done the unthinkable – which is to kill an elephant and then glorify it by putting it on public display! For that he should be ostracized and penalized. There is no glory in killing an elephant considering it is humans who have created the situation where they too are fighting for survival. If an elephant has to be killed then it should be done with dignity, respect and with the empathy it deserves.
The cost to immobilize and relocate a problem bull elephant in Sri Lanka cost on average US$5,000. In Africa it could be more considering the vast distances that need to be covered. I’ll try to get this information. In Sri Lanka trans-locating problem animals is a futile exercise since you are basically transferring the problem to another area. For example if earlier the problem bull was terrorizing a 50 square mile area – after it is translocated it terrorizes a 500 square mile area because now it’s trying to find itself back to its home territory.
Welcome to addressing human-elephant conflicts in the truest sense.
Best,
Ravi Corea -
There will be a site for this but this just was emailed to me, trying to keep speed
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage. Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution. The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildli…
You seem a lot more comfortable telling other people what they ought to do than I am.
[deleted]
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#297Hi All, Having been involved in wildlife conservation for nearly three and half a decades and trying to address human-elephant conflicts for nearly 16 years what I can say in all honesty is that elephant control is a double-edged sword. There are no utopian answers or solutions to these issues either. When it comes to human-elephant conflicts unlike in the proverbial biblical story where the lion and the lamb lied do…
Another twist - in countries where rich idiots can pay to slaughter an elephant, the game wardens have an incentive (and the resources) to manage the populations (i.e. move problem elephants, and fight poachers). In countries without hunting permits, the whole system is underfunded, making it much easier for poachers to move in.
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me like it would be much more reasonable to blame the poachers and the systems that allow poaching versus one man who legally killed an animal. An animal that was going to be destroyed anyways. In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great whi…
There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage. Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution. The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildli…
I believe that your connection of the tragedy of the commons with this specific story may be wrong.
I recall Zimbabwe is one of the countries that more or less _privatized_ elephants, and the owners of private hunting parks do not treat them at all as an infinitely renewable resource, exactly like a cow farmer doesn't. They don't have interest in over hunting, on the contrary their profit depends on having a healthy and stable population. I am not qualified enough to judge the long term effects, but Zimbabwe has had a stable/growing population of elephants for more than twenty years now.
While I don't like big animals hunting, I'd say this shows a completely different outlook from the one you refer to.
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#299Any chance this is just an April Fool's joke with a whole lot of time put into it? :P
Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
#300I guess I'll leave this here:
http://mashable.com/2011/04/01/bob-parsons-elephant-story/
Caution: Ignore if you prefer the stereotype of an exposed rich white game hunter.