Yes, I understand how you feel, it makes more sense now. Just saying a statement like "Humans need culling" w/o any backstory just seemed kinda odd

but godspeed to you sir, you have a tough job and that's understandable

If there are more downs instead of ups with your job I recommend trying to maybe ask if you can work at a different position (temporarily or whatnot)

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Nov 17 2017 05:12pm

Well I'm not hurting animals for enjoyment, pissing the bed, or playing with fire, so I'm good.

I really want to know why it matters what is done after the killing has been performed. If it's legal to kill it for food, <in my best Hillary Clinton voice> what difference does it make if they don't eat it afterwards?

For your analogy to be apt, it would be better to claim that poor people were offering up their cattle to be slaughtered when they could be eating them. Well the problem here is that people were eating their "cows" instead of conserving them.

you say there is "proof" that something changed - where exactly is it? what i read in the quotes you provided are things like "can be", "should", "potential", "could be", "will" - which are exactly the same predictions made before the ban. just to avoid confusion: big game hunting in zimbabwe is not illegal, just importing trophies to the US was - lifting the ban will undoubtedly further incentivise it - and particularly the abuse of 'problem animal' permits to obtain more "impressive" trophies. the unfortunate truth is that populations keep declining (admittedly not as quickly as previously, maybe thanks to obama's policy(?), but still: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/elephant-11-16-2017.php ) and that the economic impact is wildly overstated ( https://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question.pdf - https://conservationaction.co.za/resources/reports/lions-share-economic-benefits-trophy-hunting/ - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-08-20-op-ed-is-trophy-hunting-really-sustainable/#.VfFjS7SLFeo ).

so sure, you can agree with this policy, and you can act reasonable while doing it, but if you have to ignore these unfortunate facts and take hopeful predictions as "proof of change" in order to do so, it's not an approach i'd consider particularly fair. but hey, opinions are opinions and i'm glad we're at least discussing the topic for a change...



always assuming the worst while trying to come across as reasonable... most of what you say in the first part is obviously common sense, even though i'm not a hunter it's not hard to imagine that the trophies are a major incentive - someone who takes pride in shooting an animal obviously will have to prove they really did it. the second part, however, is not such an easy sell because it's just one side of the coin: what's also common sense is that when trophies are involved, 'problem animals' permits and similar bending of rules is more likely to happen. so i guess the question is what is more likely: smuggling a trophy and risking a massive fine, potentially prison even - or spending a couple of extra dollars (that will 'help' just one person and significantly damage conservation efforts) to kill a particularly beautiful specimen?



same thing as before: a bunch of hopeful rhetoric that looks good at first glance but little to no data to back it up. a lot of "could be", "appears to be", and "indications" though. why not let it play out and wait for PROOF of change rather than acting on promise alone. why not insist zimbabwe shows that, despite widespread corruption and political instability throughout the country, they can and will adhere to this set of rules? i assume european and asian hunters are still taking their trophies home, so why not wait and see if they can deliver on their promises, why rush this now and risk further endangering a threatened species?
sorry, but this press release has all the hallmarks of trying to prevent / contain public outrage by offering some nicely formulated phrases and some fancy sounding acronyms. i particularly like the part where it refers to the elephant census, states a number, but for some reason fails to provide a context as to how this number relates to previous years...

have you read Haidt or any papers on disgust and morality? I think it's an interesting part of the social sciences
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562923/
for more details
https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/enhancement-finding-2017-elephant-Zimbabwe.pdf

This post was edited by majorblood on Nov 17 2017 05:32pm

Be honest mate

You pee your pants

That looks very interesting thanks for the read

not sure if sarcasm

no i haven't, and neither have you apparently, because not even experiment 4 (which you have to be referring to, generously assuming you haven't just read the title) even remotely applies here.
you can just go ahead and say what you want to say though. no need be so cryptic with your ad homs...



read it - and then formulate a counter-argument supported by it.



pretty sure it's not because it's quite interesting indeed, ignoring the fact it's not in the slightest bit topic related...

This post was edited by fender on Nov 17 2017 06:05pm

I wasn't referring to anything you said when I replied to skinned with the papers. I am simply discussing and referencing an idea I find interesting with someone on this forum who studies a relevant field. I think Skinned has more insight on these types of social sciences than anyone else and therefore I value his opinion on it. Every topic on pard enters a flow state of discussion, it wont end here

This post was edited by majorblood on Nov 17 2017 06:35pm