Killing people to protect animals?

steddyeddy

I was looking at National geographic's website recently and noticed an article about a particular type of endangered gazelle. Anyway one poster commented on the photo "Im glad their not extinct but was the amount of people killed to protect them worth it?". A lot of people arent aware but theres a lot of bloodshed involved in protecting certain species. The gorilla for instance wouldnt be around if it werent for the death of hundreds of poachers.

Some species of rhino are nearly extinct and elephants are being killed for their ivory. In both cases poachers are being killed all the time. One rhino conservationist claims to have injected poison into the horn in order to kill the people who are eating it as medicine. On the illegal side of things we have the whale wars crew attacking whaling ships.

Personally I think its a necessary evil but I would rather the targets were the rich people behind the poaching rather than the poor people carried out to poach. Whats every elses opinion?

Demonical

Are you seriously questioning this? Id say kill the f**kers.

Myrddin

Poachers getting killed? Aww, poor poachers.

later12

Would I shoot a man to protect a gorilla? No, I wouldn't.

I do believe that poachers should be punished heavily for their actions, but I don't consider that punishment ought include the death penalty.

steddyeddy

Demonical wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning this? Id say kill the f**kers.

Not everyone feels the same way. Im only asking to find out the publics view of things. Their not always poachers sometimes whalers are attacked too. Personally I think its an important part of conservation. We had a situation at one time where two gorilla infants were stolen and in the process of trying to protect their infants 20 gorillas died all for twenty dollars. That sort of thing should be wiped out.

KenSwee

If anybody wants to see first hand just how cruel Humans can be on animals, all they need to do is take a day in as a volunteer as an animal shelter. It will help you to get a perspective on human behaviour and how some people just deserve what they get when they inflict pain on defenceless animals.

girl in the striped socks

Well anyone who acts the kunt with animals isn't really a major loss to society in my opinion.
And poachers know the risks, it's entirely their choice to go out & do it. So therefore they must live, or not live, with the consequences.

MarkR

They knew the risks. Do the crime, do the time get shot in the face.

I thought this was going to be about people swerving to avoid animals in their car or something.

These are armed criminals being killed during a failed robbery.

steddyeddy

later12 wrote: »

Would I shoot a man to protect a gorilla? No, I wouldn't.

I do believe that poachers should be punished heavily for their actions, but I don't consider that punishment ought include the death penalty.

Well their not always executed after. Sometimes the poachers are shot in the process of trying to steal gorilla infants and they fire at the anti poaching patrols. Other times they are executed after.

kwestfan08

Oops misread the thread title. Thought it referred to something like moving a family out of their home or something just so a certain animal might survive.

As for poachers getting killed. Well they wouldn't be getting hurt of they weren't doing anything illegal so if your going to hunt big game, be prepared to be hunted yourself I guess.

steddyeddy

It isnt all about poachers. What do people think about people using force (illegally) to stop whaling.

Pompey Magnus

Ideally they should be captured peacefully, have their weapon removed and then placed in an arena with their intended target. If they can kill the adult silverback or rhino in a fair fight then they can keep it's body.

later12

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well their not always executed after. Sometimes the poachers are shot in the process of trying to steal gorilla infants and they fire at the anti poaching patrols.

That's self defence though, not really in the same category of retaliation.

Other times they are executed after.

That's the one I'd have a problem with. I don't believe in the death penalty as a punishment; why not send them to prison and at least force them to do something productive for society

partyatmygaff

We don't want the death penalty for murderers but we do for poachers?

It's a strange world.

kirving

On Whale Wars, I respect what they're trying to do - I think that something needs to be done to stop commercial whaling. But, some of them are a bunch of clowns. Puttting the lives of crew members(of both ships) in danger in the Antartic due to a stupidly thought out plan and too much bravado is just crazy. One of them is going to be killed in the near future.

Anyway, the reason poachers are shot is that they have guns, and would rather shoot a park ranger rather than be imprisoned. Better to shoot first and ask questions later when your life (as a park rangers) is at risk.

dlofnep

Humans are animals, just like every other on this planet. We have zero rights to kill an animal for anything other than a food source or protecting livestock. Poachers don't get a free pass with me. Every time I see one of those **** with a high-powered rifle trying to get their kicks out of levelling a defenceless animal (in particular those endangered) - I justifiably root for the animal. Just like those exhibitions where bulls are speared to death, it brings me great pleasure watching the Matador's getting lobbed into the air like a lump of dough.

Dyr

Are humans endangered? Nope. Fire away boys

They should be shooting their paymasters and all

Killer Wench

I don't condone killing people to protect animals. I believe in severe punishments like imprisonment, exile, public embarrassment, boycotts, and the like but not the killing. Then again, I think it is ridiculous that people kill doctors who perform abortions, and I am also against the death penalty.

later12

dlofnep wrote: »

Humans are animals, just like every other on this planet. We have zero rights to kill an animal for anything other than a food source

Wait, so those of us in the developed world who can afford high protein dietary alternatives shouldn't be permitted to kill animals for food... right?

Or are you saying we should be allowed killed tasty things because the alternative would be less tasty?

girl in the striped socks

Bambi wrote: »

Are humans endangered? Nope. Fire away boys

They should be shooting their paymasters and all

Very appropriate username

girl in the striped socks

KenSwee wrote: »

If anybody wants to see first hand just how cruel Humans can be on animals, all they need to do is take a day in as a volunteer as an animal shelter. It will help you to get a perspective on human behaviour and how some people just deserve what they get when they inflict pain on defenceless animals.

Wish I could thank this post more than once.
Couldn't have said it better tbh.

dlofnep

later12 wrote: »

Wait, so those of us in the developed world who can afford high protein dietary alternatives shouldn't be permitted to kill animals for food... right?

Or are you saying we should be allowed killed tasty things because the alternative would be less tasty?

No, meat is a legitimate source of food - and without it, we would not have evolved to have the brain we have today. If people want to eat the food, they can hunt for it - so long as it's done in a sustainable manner.

Killing animals for fun, or for the trophy however is utterly senseless.

woodoo

Yeah i'm 100% behind killing poachers to protect endangered species.

Pawwed Rig

steddyeddy wrote: »

It isnt all about poachers. What do people think about people using force (illegally) to stop whaling.

They would argue that the Whalers are acting illegally. Isn't it outlawed by international law with the Japanese getting around the ban by saying it is for 'scientific research'. I am looking forward to a big breakthrough from Japan as a result of this research.
Another issue is Shark Finning where the 'fisherman' slices of the sharks fin and throws the live shark back into the water to essentially drown.

Should people be killed for this? Probably not as you are going after desperate poor people trying to get through life. There is no real alternative though if they are shooting at the anti poaching patrol.

An education campaign and strong laws in China and other Asian countries would eliminate demand for Shark Fins, Rhino horns, Ivory etc. Who is going to stand up to the Chinese though?

steddyeddy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

On Whale Wars, I respect what they're trying to do - I think that something needs to be done to stop commercial whaling. But, some of them are a bunch of clowns. Puttting the lives of crew members(of both ships) in danger in the Antartic due to a stupidly thought out plan and too much bravado is just crazy. One of them is going to be killed in the near future.

Anyway, the reason poachers are shot is that they have guns, and would rather shoot a park ranger rather than be imprisoned. Better to shoot first and ask questions later when your life (as a park rangers) is at risk.

True but often the poacher is killed after. I will point out a fair amount of conservationists are killed protecting animals. Dian Fossey who protected the mountain gorillas was killed protecting the gorillas.

My name is URL

I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

later12

dlofnep wrote: »

No, meat is a legitimate source of food - and without it, we would not have evolved to have the brain we have today

You could say the same thing for animal skins. We needed them at one point, but we don't anymore. Those of us in advanced economies in particular can easily afford to live on non meat alternatives.

So your argument is that because we used to need it, we should be allowed kill them? This sounds a little irrational...

Also; for those saying we should allow kill to protect endangered species, do you extend this to our old friend the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, a rare Japanese dragonfly? Would you shoot to protect the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, or does it only count if the animal is sufficiently pretty?

Capt'n Midnight

Kenya has the death penalty for robbery with violence. So you can imagine what it's like in poorer countries.

Real problem is that this will happen if there is a market for it.

So should people dealing in animal products should have to face penalties that match the reality of the human deaths involved ?



The growing wealth of China is killing off too many endangered species :mad:

steddyeddy

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They would argue that the Whalers are acting illegally. Isn't it outlawed by international law with the Japanese getting around the ban by saying it is for 'scientific research'. I am looking forward to a big breakthrough from Japan as a result of this research.
Another issue is Shark Finning where the 'fisherman' slices of the sharks fin and throws the live shark back into the water to essentially drown.

Should people be killed for this? Probably not as you are going after desperate poor people trying to get through life. There is no real alternative though if they are shooting at the anti poaching patrol.

An education campaign and strong laws in China and other Asian countries would eliminate demand for Shark Fins, Rhino horns, Ivory etc. Who is going to stand up to the Chinese though?

Thats the thing. Trying to protect theses creatures is like fighting a war at times. In some parts of the world non violent conservation has worked but not always. Education is important I agree and a better alternative to violence.

B.A._Baracus

They shouldnt be killed.
But if the poachers were carring guns themselves (which surely alot are?) Well thats different. But on the surface I dont think a person should be shot over an endagered animal. Arrested, jailed or whatever. Sure.

Its funny tho. Its perfectly acceptable to kill millions of cows, pigs and chickens because we breed them and we are higher on the food chain. The nature of life you could say. But if you try to kill an endangered animal? thats "too far" ... is extinction not the nature of life aswell?

steddyeddy

later12 wrote: »

You could say the same thing for animal skins. We needed them at one point, but we don't anymore. Those of us in advanced economies in particular can easily afford to live on non meat alternatives.

So your argument is that because we used to need it, we should be allowed kill them? This sounds a little irrational...

Also; for those saying we should allow kill to protect endangered species, do you extend this to our old friend the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, a rare Japanese dragonfly? Would you shoot to protect the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, or does it only count if the animal is sufficiently pretty?

Im talking about endangered animals not cows or any livestock.

steddyeddy

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

They shouldnt be killed.
But if the poachers were carring guns themselves (which surely alot are?) Well thats different. But on the surface I dont think a person should be shot over an endagered animal. Arrested, jailed or whatever. Sure.

Its funny tho. Its perfectly acceptable to kill millions of cows, pigs and chickens because we breed them and we are higher on the food chain. The nature of life you could say. But if you try to kill an endangered animal? thats "too far" ... is extinction not the nature of life aswell?

Indeed extinction is a natural part of life. The thing is we have an adavanced intellect that intorduces ethics into anything we do.

Pawwed Rig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats the thing. Trying to protect theses creatures is like fighting a war at times. In some parts of the world non violent conservation has worked but not always. Education is important I agree and a better alternative to violence.

The problem with Marine life is that it does not fall under any 1 jurisdiction. Essentially, say the Japanese, can have an effect on worldwide Whale numbers whereas Orangutan numbers in, say, Borneo can be controlled by the authorities there.

There is also the consideration of National income. Alot of these countries will hope to have a strong tourist industry based on rare wild animals. It cokmes down to how much is a human life worth. We can be naive and say there is no monetary value on a human but in reality there is.

Agricola

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

They shouldnt be killed.
But if the poachers were carring guns themselves (which surely alot are?) Well thats different. But on the surface I dont think a person should be shot over an endagered animal. Arrested, jailed or whatever. Sure.

Its funny tho. Its perfectly acceptable to kill millions of cows, pigs and chickens because we breed them and we are higher on the food chain. The nature of life you could say. But if you try to kill an endangered animal? thats "too far" ... is extinction not the nature of life aswell?

Are you seriously saying that in order to placate the Chinese quack medicine market, we should stand idly by and let poachers irradiate all tigers, rhinos etc from the face of the earth? Even if it was for a genuinely useful purpose it would be reprehensible, but to allow it in order for someone in the far east to have a herbal remedy that science has proven is nothing more than a placebo, is pure madness! :mad:
Christ, there is no hope for humanity if the majority of people give as little a shít about the world as you do.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, maybe 2 billion too many. If someone wants to go out and hunt the last couple of hundred animals of a certain species so they can make a fat profit, then give it to them with both barrels.

dlofnep

later12 wrote: »

You could say the same thing for animal skins. We needed them at one point, but we don't anymore. Those of us in advanced economies in particular can easily afford to live on non meat alternatives.

I accept the premise of your analogy, but I don't agree that meat is comparable with animal-skins in terms of importance in modern society. It's worth pointing out that animals are still slaughtered routinely for clothing and footwear.

later12 wrote: »

So your argument is that because we used to need it, we should be allowed kill them? This sounds a little irrational...

No, my argument is that because it is a natural source of food - it is natural to hunt and eat animals. Once again, on a personal level - it wouldn't be my cup of tea - but I accept it as a valid means of acquiring food for human beings.

later12 wrote: »

Also; for those saying we should allow kill to protect endangered species, do you extend this to our old friend the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, a rare Japanese dragonfly? Would you shoot to protect the Leptogomphus yayeyamensis, or does it only count if the animal is sufficiently pretty?

No, I don't consider insects as having the same value as mammals. Entomologists will obviously have a different view. It would be sad to see any creature wiped from existence of course, so I would support any conservation efforts to preserve any creature, but within limits. I view mammals as a far more important class of animals than insects. That's my honest view.

later12

dlofnep wrote: »

I accept the premise of your analogy, but I don't agree that meat is comparable with animal-skins in terms of importance in modern society.

But meat is not necessary - we can derive the same nutrients from alternative dietary sources. You seem to be suggesting that we should consume some animals in gratitude to their contribution to our evolution thus far. If you have a more credible version of that interpretation then go ahead an put it out there. But what you're saying isn't making any sense.

What's even more strange is that for people in very poor societies, engaging in dangerous activities like poaching is an economic necessity; far more important than our desire to eat something which we rather meaninglessly defend because it's "natural", as though everything "natural" somehow needs to be preserved.

No, I don't consider insects as having the same value as mammals.

Ok not sure why that would be but lets leave that aside and stick to mammals. You're saying men should be shot if they damage the rare solenodon or the toothless echidna?

You believe that shooting this animals ought to result in the death penalty?

Really?

Pottler

Some poachers definitly need a good slap. Gary Lineker springs to mind immediatly. Or Messi.

Richard Hillman

If poachers are endangered, do we start shooting the people poaching the poachers

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed extinction is a natural part of life. The thing is we have an adavanced intellect that intorduces ethics into anything we do.

Except we are wiping out entire species at thousands of times the background rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

The_Thing

There should be hunting trips where the poachers are the ones being hunted.

Riddle101

Is it right to kill humans to protect animals?

Nope, I don't think it's right to kill human period. Even to protect other humans, unless of course there was no other choice. But as far as killing to protect animals go, if there is a more less harmful way of dealing with poachers then I'd gladly accept that then having to resort to taking another life.

Dude111

This was a hard poll for me to answer and you know why?

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS!!!!!!!

Dangerous Man

Ah just kill the whole feckin' lot of them! Kill the gorillas and the deer and the sheep and the Quinn family - kill them all!

B.A._Baracus

Agricola wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that in order to placate the Chinese quack medicine market, we should stand idly by and let poachers irradiate all tigers, rhinos etc from the face of the earth? Even if it was for a genuinely useful purpose it would be reprehensible, but to allow it in order for someone in the far east to have a herbal remedy that science has proven is nothing more than a placebo, is pure madness! :mad:

Christ, there is no hope for humanity if the majority of people give as little a shít about the world as you do.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, maybe 2 billion too many. If someone wants to go out and hunt the last couple of hundred animals of a certain species so they can make a fat profit, then give it to them with both barrels.

the majority of the people in this world, share my attitude towards the rest of the world I do believe :pac:

But enough about me what about your attitude. You'd gladly see a man gunned down for trying to kill an endangered animal. Rather than being arrested for the crime. Says alot about how you weigh a human life doesnt it?

Capt'n Midnight

The_Thing wrote: »

There should be hunting trips where the poachers are the ones being hunted.

But what happens if someone doesn't want to pay and decides to hunt illegally ?

Gbear

It should probably be pointed out that quite a few poachers do it to feed their families in an extremely impoverished part of the world.

It's not generally gangs of wealthy Europeans moonlighting as poachers.

It's not going to go away unless the market is attacked (stopping the sale of bull**** chinese alternative "medicine" for example) and the economies of the areas can provide alternatives to poaching.

I'm not saying what they do is right and if you're taking shots at people running anti-poaching patrols then I can't see how you'd have a right to complain about being shot in the face, but these aren't just c*nts doing this for the laugh or for pure greed either.

later12

Gbear wrote: »

It should probably be pointed out that quite a few poachers do it to feed their families in an extremely impoverished part of the world.

It's not generally gangs of wealthy Europeans moonlighting as poachers.
.

Indeed.

Interesting auxiliary question might be if you were an impoverished father with a family you couldn't otherwise maintain, would you go on shooting expeditions, or would you let your family face malnourishment or acute poverty in order to protect a pretty animal?

Easy admire these creatures from the comfort of your leather sofa. I imagine the choice is somewhat more stark if you're an impoverished Ugandan father and husband.

crazy cabbage

Interesting debate. I am not sure where i stand tbh.
If for example someone was about to shoot a monkey i would see no reason not to shoot the person to protect the monkey.
If however the person already shot the monkey i do not condone the death penealty. He should be trialed and locked up/ whatever punisment that society deems fit.
I suppose my view would be simmilar to if somone was about to shoot my family i would have no troble shooting them. If however they are already dead and the police come and investigate and get the person rensponsible i dont think it responsible that i be aloud to shoot him. He should be trialed for the crime.
Edit: i actully didn't think of improvished countries and killing to feed yourself. I was just thinking about 'the fun of it' or for selling skins and that. Will have to think how i feel about it in that case... hhhmmm

dlofnep wrote: »

No, meat is a legitimate source of food - and without it, we would not have evolved to have the brain we have today. If people want to eat the food, they can hunt for it - so long as it's done in a sustainable manner.

Killing animals for fun, or for the trophy however is utterly senseless.

Interesting considering that no scientist really has a clue how our brain doubled in size in 2 million years which is 10 times the speed of normal evolution. Current theories do not hold up to scruntny. Unless of course that you have conclusive proof that escaped the rest of the scientific community? If you do i would be delighted to hear of it but to say that eating meat ment that our brain went under unprecendent growth is silly. In that case there sould be a wide range of animals that should have much bigger brains than they actully do.

No. That isn't right. What was responsible for the doubling in size of the human brain in aprox 2 million years has to be something far less common than meat otherwise it would have happened to many speices and would have happened millions of years ago.

Mickeroo

It's an interesting one. Not often you see such a close poll in here. I don't think i agree with someone being executed after the fact but if they get gunned down during the act then that's tough **** for them really. I voted "only if it's endangered".

I understand some of the poachers might be doing it out of desperation to feed their families and such but I have no sympathy for the people pulling their strings. Wiping a whole species off the the face of the planet for no good reason is about as big an atrocity as you can get in my eyes.

Galwayguy35

Saw an interesting programme on Nat Geo where this rich hunter was after a buffalo but the buffalo was too smart for him and sent him to the hunting grounds in the sky.

I couldn't care less if poachers are shot.

RaRaRasputin

Human arrogance to believe that we are a superiour species is enough reason to take sides with the animals. No other animal apart from humans inflicts such atrocities as we do....so yes, killing people seems ok to me.