An American millionaire big-game hunter has died after being crushed by a group of elephants during a hunting expedition in Gabon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 154 points 5 months ago (35 children)

If we're gonna pretend hunting is sport, you've gotta be prepared for the other team to show up and play.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    He was hunting antelopes, not elephants at least. But I'm still glad the elephants showed up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    He had hunted elephants previously and had elephant trophies, so I have no sympathy for him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The was hunting yellow backed duiker which, A, are evidently insanely easy to hunt. So easy that you can evidently shine a light at it at night, walk right up to it, and club it to death.

    They're a vital food source for a bit part of central Africa.

    And 2, they're so heavily hunted that they're at serious risk of endangerment.

    I said something in another post about there being a chance this was a genuine conversation effort, but after doing some reading; no. This guy is just an asshole. He got justifiably trampled by elephants doing something for fun that the people of central Africa do every day to feed themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    They’re a vital food source for a bit part of central Africa.
    And 2, they’re so heavily hunted that they’re at serious risk of endangerment.

    Food source or at risk of endangerment? Pick an argument.

    ...this was a genuine conversation effort...

    Ah, I see. Don't bother.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    One has a fragile population and is well respected the other doesn't. It's for the same reason Bison hunting is looked down apon but annihilating a boar with a landmine wouldn't be.

    Edit: Just noticed that the species he was hunting was endangered, fuck him. My point still stands for boars though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Stewardship of the land, environment, and creatures apon it is why, a species going through endangerment isn't going to pose even a quarter of the issues a booming elk population without wolves can for example.

    As for your emotional point, wholly irrelevant. I would happily maim plenty of humans before granting them an indigent and painful death. So long as the kill is as clean as possible and as much of the animal is used as possible. Your emotional argument is wholly empty to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    If we're going to pretend it's a sport, let both sides be humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    I mean, the guise we use for hunting is that it's for population control to properly conserve the environment. I suppose if you wanted to say there were some populations that needed controlling on environmental grounds, like billionaires or something, I might be amenable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    It's more like that hunting permit fees fund actual conservation efforts, not that there's really much of a legitimate conservation effect from the hunting itself. (Except maybe when it's an invasive species.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder what percentage goes to the actual conservation efforts, after all the cuts and bribes by the middlemen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    It depends heavily where it is. Some of the programs are very very good, others are corrupt af.

    The best ones give the people living in proximity to the animals recourse when said animals destroy crops or property. This plus giving back a portion of the fees to help community enrichment projects incentivizes protection of the animals by the locals, which deters poaching and stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    When prey animals are "saved" from their natural predators, they tend to over reproduce and wreak havoc on their environment. Deer in North America is an example that needs to be controlled.

    Is don't know to what extent though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    When prey animals are “saved” from their natural predators, they tend to over reproduce and wreak havoc on their environment.

    Exactly...

    When corrupt capitalists are "saved" from taxation, they tend to hoard wealth and wreck havoc on the economy. Drastically lowering not only everyone else's quality of life, but in many cases their physical health and well-being along with everyone they know and interact with

    It's a classic trolly problem.

    Track one: about 8,300,000,000 people

    Track 2: 3,500 people that aimed the trolleybat track 1.

    Would you turn the switch back so it saves 8.3 billion people, at the expense of of the less than 4 thousand people that put us in front of the trolley?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Wish granted: millionaires now hunt us for sport.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments