Ricky Gervais blasts trophy hunters trying to excuse 'grim sport' by saying they 'provide a service'

[Dakine10 5,452]

and i'm sure some do.

yet - what is known about the ones that are killed?

perhaps - selected for culling by the local authorities for various reasons? like too old, not in good health?

Like the lions that are bred just for trophy hunters?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/03/canned-hunting-lions-bred-slaughter

I don't know what the original intent behind these hunts was. Possibly there was a source of revenue to help with conservation. Human nature seems to have taken over.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Reasonable was already presented in the OP, discounted and ignored. Perhaps you should start there.

You don't promote conservation by killing the things you're trying to conserve.

yeah, being outraged is much more productive than even considering anything beneficial out of this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yeah, being outraged is much more productive than even considering anything beneficial out of this.

What do you think came out of it?

Other than a corpse and a photo of some numpty lying next to it, grinning like an idiot.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Venkman

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Like the lions that are bred just for trophy hunters?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/03/canned-hunting-lions-bred-slaughter

I don't know what the original intent behind these hunts was. Possibly there was a source of revenue to help with conservation. Human nature seems to have taken over.

that i totally disagree with.

What do you think came out of it?

Other than a corpse and a photo of some numpty lying next to it, grinning like an idiot.

if you can't think of anything other than that, it's not my job to spell things out for you.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

45k for an elephant probably goes a long ways towards paying rangers to keep the poachers in check. yet some apparently don't like that concept, meaning the elephants will just have to take their chances with poachers.

How about the rich people pay $45K for every poacher being shot / arrested / prosecuted ?

[JohnR! 5,495]

if you can't think of anything other than that, it's not my job to spell things out for you.

then pray tell, what could the locals do to generate cash instead of this?
let me guess, you think these hunts are just go out and blast the first ____ that is seen?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

that i totally disagree with.

if you can't think of anything other than that, it's not my job to spell things out for you.

No it isn't. But you've chosen to take the line that somehow this sort of thing is justifiable and has resulted in something positive. It's not unreasonable to ask why or what that might be.

As the other poster here said, why the need for a hunt, why not just donate the money?

Seems to me that all this does is say that if you are rich enough you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. What sort of message does it say that it's ok to kill an endangered animal if you pay for the privilege.

This is the 21st century, we should have moved beyond 19th century values by now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if you can't think of anything other than that, it's not my job to spell things out for you.

Charles is a moderator. Apparently that means it's ok to trash the thread and participate in a passive aggressive non participatory way.

If these sorts of white man's privilege trophy hunts are justifiable it shouldn't be hard to explain why.

Of course they aren't, so it is and he hasn't, nor will he..

But then again we should protect the wealthy hunt class from being marginalised. It's the fair and reasonable thing to do.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Venkman

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

How about the rich people pay $45K for every poacher being shot / arrested / prosecuted ?

i'm sure some in this very thread might oppose that idea too.

although maybe the rich people paying 45k to hunt poachers might be an interesting turn of events.

if you can't think of anything other than that, it's not my job to spell things out for you.

you were the one to bring that up, or did you forget that?

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

No it isn't. But you've chosen to take the line that somehow this sort of thing is justifiable and has resulted in something positive. It's not unreasonable to ask why or what that might be.

As the other poster here said, why the need for a hunt, why not just donate the money?

Seems to me that all this does is say that if you are rich enough you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. What sort of message does it say that it's ok to kill an endangered animal if you pay for the privilege.

This is the 21st century, we should have moved beyond 19th century values by now.

just because you think nothing positive can come from it does not make it so.

perhaps educational reading on the subject?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm sure some in this very thread might oppose that idea too.

although maybe the rich people paying 45k to hunt poachers might be an interesting turn of events.

you were the one to bring that up, or did you forget that?

A DVD copy of Hard Target and the latest Call of Duty would be less expensive.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Who polices the police?

Charles is a moderator. Apparently that means it's ok to trash the thread and participate in a passive aggressive non participatory way.

If these sorts of white man's privilege trophy hunts are justifiable it shouldn't be hard to explain why.

Of course they aren't, so it is and he hasn't, nor will he..

But then again we should protect the wealthy hunt class from being marginalised. It's the fair and reasonable thing to do.

[BaronB 42]

Do the animals need to be protected? YES YES YES. Absolutely without question.

If you have travelled to South Africa, namely the Kruger National Park, and stayed there you would understand that hunting endangered species is NOT the way to go about conserving them. The cost of staying in a Reserve is sometimes equal to killing one of these creatures. I cannot justify killing an animal to save them. Not when I pay just as much to see them as someone would pay to kill them. NO WAY, NO HOW.

So come here and tell me I am wrong, I know from many experiences that is NOT the right way to go about Conservation. It is not ethically right or economically right or ecologically right.

So please, come here an tell me otherwise.

Edited April 23, 2015 by BaronB

[JohnR! 5,495]

I was being kind. You're welcome.

you were the one to bring that up, or did you forget that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

just because you think nothing positive can come from it does not make it so.

perhaps educational reading on the subject?

Feel free to provide some insight.