|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 29, 2015 17:16:51 GMT -5
Fry the bastard, and all like him. Ok, I know you don't mean that. I think we need to step back a bit on this. The simple fact is that if we want there to be any large predators left in the wild, that will require careful management. And that will involve killing some of them when necessary. If we are going to "fry" the dentist for shooting a lion, in and of itself, then we will eventually have no lions outside of zoos. On the other hand, if we are going to fry the dentist for shooting this lion, in this manner, in this place, then there is going to be a lot of frying going on. I think the circumstances behind this particular hunt say as much about corruption in Zimbabwe as it does about the dentist from Minnesota. I don't think hunting is a significant threat to lions. Their numbers are declining largely because of habitat loss.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 29, 2015 18:45:39 GMT -5
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the guy's pure stupidity. Do not go into a country as unstable as Zimbabwe and bend any law in any shape or form. That's just asking for serious trouble. I'd say there's a good chance some of that $50K went to paying off some government official just so there wouldn't be any fuss. Which turned out not to have worked. See "stupidity factor" (above).
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 29, 2015 19:40:28 GMT -5
I have been on a few brilliant wildlife watching trips in South-East Africa. I've been dumbstruck with awe as have many of my companions during close up encounters with lions in the wild. I don't know if I'll ever understand what makes the difference between those who think "wow, what an amazing animal for me to watch, spellbound!" and others who think "wow, what a cool animal for me to kill".
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 29, 2015 19:41:01 GMT -5
Oh, I agree, Don. But stupid dentist is darned lucky he wasn't locked up in a more than dismal third world jail cell in the hopes of more money. If crooked Zimbabwe would have been thinking, they could have taken the guy for a lot more than $50K.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 30, 2015 6:06:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 30, 2015 6:07:33 GMT -5
Perhaps more outrage over the Planned Parenthood baby-parts scandal could have been mustered had they substituted "baby lion parts".
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 30, 2015 7:34:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 30, 2015 7:57:57 GMT -5
Fry the bastard, and all like him. Ok, I know you don't mean that. I think we need to step back a bit on this. The simple fact is that if we want there to be any large predators left in the wild, that will require careful management. And that will involve killing some of them when necessary. If we are going to "fry" the dentist for shooting a lion, in and of itself, then we will eventually have no lions outside of zoos. On the other hand, if we are going to fry the dentist for shooting this lion, in this manner, in this place, then there is going to be a lot of frying going on. I think the circumstances behind this particular hunt say as much about corruption in Zimbabwe as it does about the dentist from Minnesota. I don't think hunting is a significant threat to lions. Their numbers are declining largely because of habitat loss. It's the Internet, dude ! ! ! Don't go getting logical on us. There's a lot of loaded emotion in this storyline. It's as much privileged vs common man as it is about the lion. It's cartoon-like in it's simplistic retelling; good vs evil. It plays on the Internet as a perfect soundbite (textbite?). Just a picture and a headline and BAM you've got viral. But I have no empathy for the guy involved. My only complaint is there are hundreds of jerks like him sitting in their trophy dens, wiping their brow, and thinking, "Boy I dodged a bullet on that one." And it won't change their behavior one bit, except they'll be a little more careful where they post their trophy photos.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 30, 2015 9:09:24 GMT -5
Fry the bastard, and all like him. Ok, I know you don't mean that. I think we need to step back a bit on this. The simple fact is that if we want there to be any large predators left in the wild, that will require careful management. And that will involve killing some of them when necessary. If we are going to "fry" the dentist for shooting a lion, in and of itself, then we will eventually have no lions outside of zoos. On the other hand, if we are going to fry the dentist for shooting this lion, in this manner, in this place, then there is going to be a lot of frying going on. I think the circumstances behind this particular hunt say as much about corruption in Zimbabwe as it does about the dentist from Minnesota. I don't think hunting is a significant threat to lions. Their numbers are declining largely because of habitat loss. Here's another (bigger) angle I just thought of. This schmuck and his predicament are meaningless. And as you say, the lion's days are numbered anyway. But what makes this story resonate is it's a metaphor for man's intrusion and dominance of the world. In effect we are hating that part of ourselves for the damage we've done to the world.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 30, 2015 9:19:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Jul 30, 2015 9:30:49 GMT -5
Palmer didn't kill one lion. Jericho, the next male in the hierarchy will likely kill his cubs, and some of the she-lions may be killed in the bargain. Just out of curiosity (I genuinely don't know), what would have happened differently if the old guy had kicked from natural causes? That's a valid question, Peter. According to the Pittsburgh Zoo's website, an African lion's life span is 15 to 18 years in the wild, 25 to 30 in captivity. I would guess that in this protected park it would fall somewhere in the middle. But even at the lower in-the-wild scenario, without dead-eye dickhead interfering, there is every reason to believe that the cubs would have had time to grow to maturity and render Jericho's threat moot. But we'll never know, we'll we?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 30, 2015 9:51:12 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 30, 2015 9:57:03 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do. +1
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 10:15:13 GMT -5
It's as much privileged vs common man as it is about the lion. It's cartoon-like in it's simplistic retelling; good vs evil. It plays on the Internet as a perfect soundbite (textbite?). Just a picture and a headline and BAM you've got viral. I think that's most of it, right there. Envy, really. Isn't that what we've turned the word "privilege" into? "Check your privilege" sounds so much better than "I envy you". It even manages to project the moral condemnation onto the envied and away from those doing the envying. What could be more modern? But who is it actually expressing privilege here? From our perspective, what is Africa? Does it belong to us? Is it our privilege to project our aesthetic and moral sensibilities onto people a half a world away? Is it our privilege to determine the manner and methods of wildlife management for Africans? The Africa we want is a continental "Colonial Williamburg". A place we can go and visit to have our perceptions of how things once were confirmed in the present. And what would a more perfect expression of "privilege" look like? Here's another (bigger) angle I just thought of. This schmuck and his predicament are meaningless. And as you say, the lion's days are numbered anyway. But what makes this story resonate is it's a metaphor for man's intrusion and dominance of the world. In effect we are hating that part of ourselves for the damage we've done to the world. And that's the rest of it. Boil it down to the bottom of the pot, and what you are expressing is functionally the same thing as Anti-Colonialism. I go back to what I said a few posts ago. If there are to be any large predators living in the wild, they will have to be managed. And that means killing some of them from time to time. Surely there is no disagreement on that point. So, the outrage really comes down to the manner of the killing and who it is doing the killing? To quote our next President, "What difference does it make?" Suppose there were no organized wildlife management apparatus in Zimbabwe (not too much of a stretch, really). What would happen? The locals, coexisting with lions, would find themselves clashing with those lions from time to time. The lions would kill some livestock here and there, and once in a while kill a human. And from time to time the people would decide the lions needed some culling and would do it. It's easy to be romantic about lions from our privileged position of safety, but either way, the lion is just as dead. I'll leave wildlife management in Zimbabwe to Zimbabweans (corrupt as they are). If they manage to fleece some dentist for $50k in the process, more power to them. That country is a complete mess. They need the money.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 11:31:04 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do. No part of your Federal tax dollars goes to fund Planned Parenthood's abortion services, or anyone else's. They provide low cost health care to women, that's what they get tax dollars to do. Whether they get funded or not should be on the basis of how well they do that, not on a fraudulent political campaign by a group of fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 30, 2015 11:46:40 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do. No part of your Federal tax dollars goes to fund Planned Parenthood's abortion services, or anyone else's. They provide low cost health care to women, that's what they get tax dollars to do. Whether they get funded or not should be on the basis of how well they do that, not on a fraudulent political campaign by a group of fanatics. Count me among the fanatics. Everything about PP stinks, from its racist eugeneticist founder to its cavalier and defensive attitude about its seamiest practices. I must be a fanatic, since I can muster more outrage over the wholesale killing of foetii than over poor Cecil's demise
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 11:48:56 GMT -5
Defund them. Immediately, if not sooner. If concerned parties want to see it continue with its mission, let them open up their pocketbooks. Please quit prying mine open to pay for what they do. No part of your Federal tax dollars goes to fund Planned Parenthood's abortion services, or anyone else's. They provide low cost health care to women, that's what they get tax dollars to do. Whether they get funded or not should be on the basis of how well they do that, not on a fraudulent political campaign by a group of fanatics. Then there should be no difficulty divesting themselves from the abortion business. Spin it off into a legally, administratively and financially separate organization. Share no space or facilities with the health care division. Problem solved. And if the two functions (abortion and health care) are as distinct as PP asks us to believe, the switch should be simple.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 30, 2015 11:54:32 GMT -5
No part of your Federal tax dollars goes to fund Planned Parenthood's abortion services, or anyone else's. They provide low cost health care to women, that's what they get tax dollars to do. Whether they get funded or not should be on the basis of how well they do that, not on a fraudulent political campaign by a group of fanatics. Count me among the fanatics. Everything about PP stinks, from its racist eugeneticist founder to its cavalier and defensive attitude about its seamiest practices. I must be a fanatic, since I can muster more outrage over the wholesale killing of foetii than over poor Cecil's demise In today's world, those who casually sip wine and munch on salad while discussing dissecting babies for the purposes of harvesting their organs for financial gain are the sane ones, and those who find that barbaric are the fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 30, 2015 11:59:33 GMT -5
I go back to what I said a few posts ago. If there are to be any large predators living in the wild, they will have to be managed. And that means killing some of them from time to time. Surely there is no disagreement on that point. So, the outrage really comes down to the manner of the killing and who it is doing the killing? To quote our next President, "What difference does it make?" You and Marshall have been hanging around Russell too much. The time and manner of this lion's death ARE important. Yes, he was going to die someday anyway, we all are. That's irrelevant. Every animal everywhere is going to die someday. The difference between wildlife management and poaching is that management is done in such a way as to optimize the number and quality of the animals, as opposed to just slaughter them to inflate the egos of rich SOBs. Imagine you are held up in a dark alley by a robber. When it becomes apparent he is going to shoot you, you beg for your life. Then he turns philosophical and says, "Does it really matter? We're all going to die someday, aren't we? Aren't we really just arguing over the timing and manner? You're just upset by that timing thing, aren't you?" There's an implicit assumption that there was complicity on the part of the officials here, when there is no evidence of that. The real colonialism comes in when a rich white man flies in from the other side of the world and is able to just buy the opportunity to kill something that a lot of the locals make their living from showing to tourists, ignoring the local laws. That's classic colonialism.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 30, 2015 12:01:12 GMT -5
|
|