Author Topic: Episode #723  (Read 2847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2019, 01:12:54 AM »
Are those of you who are criticizing Cara’s comments opposed to all hunting, or only to particular kinds of hunting or hunting of particular species?
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3047
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #31 on: May 20, 2019, 03:55:48 AM »
I'm not necessarily against trophy hunting, my issue is with presenting it as if the good that it does couldn't be done without it. I'm not going to praise someone who travels around the world to kill a rare animal, if the actual good part is the money. If you want to give money to conservation, good, go ahead. But the people who would pamper you, and arrange all of it, probably have the necessary skills to do the hunting themselves. So what do you need to go there for?

I don't see the entertainment aspect of hunting being necessary. Which doesn't mean I'm against people enjoying themselves when they do something that's necessary, but I wouldn't use it as an argument for why something should be allowed.

Offline Zec

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2019, 04:30:30 AM »
Cara went there and talked to the lobbysts of trophy hunting and came out converted. That's hardly a skeptical approach.
This people have an interest, that should be a red flag.
So converted that enviromentalist institution are now "ill informed".
Has she talked to experts on the other side?
We need more than a purely utilitarian argument regarding something that is in my opinion morally debatable.
The question is: are there better ways to preserve wildlife than allowing assholes to kill endangered animals for money?
And is it really a net positive anyway?
here a more nuanced view.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/
.

 

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16770
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2019, 04:38:05 AM »
If we could get people to give for the good of it then the problem would be easier to solve.
But we cant yet. We do have an interest in those animals though for various reasons, the best option I can see in that case is to monetise said interest and use it to help with conservation.
Not ideal, better than relying on charity from the kinds of people who want so badly to shoot lions though.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3047
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2019, 04:45:36 AM »
One of the reasons we can't is because we let the very rich few have a massively skewed influence on our governments. One money, one vote. The two hundred million dollars mentioned in Adam's video is nothing compared to the taxes that are being legally avoided, let alone what could've been paid if the tax rates hadn't been significantly lowered over the recent decades.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2019, 05:13:05 AM »
Trophy hunting (stags and thar) is a rather big industry in Aotearoa.  It brings in big bucks (oops) but delivers little in the need to cull those rather pesky and ruinous populations.  We rely on helicopters, professional shooters for the 200 plus kills/day for that.  Mind you, a dear (oops again) friend keeps us supplied with venison. Yum.

My contribution is helping rid Godzone of mice, rats, stoats, possums, hares, rabbits, and cats.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3047
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #36 on: May 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM »
Cara went there and talked to the lobbysts of trophy hunting and came out converted. That's hardly a skeptical approach.
This people have an interest, that should be a red flag.
So converted that enviromentalist institution are now "ill informed".
Has she talked to experts on the other side?
We need more than a purely utilitarian argument regarding something that is in my opinion morally debatable.
The question is: are there better ways to preserve wildlife than allowing assholes to kill endangered animals for money?
And is it really a net positive anyway?
here a more nuanced view.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/
.

Listening again to what Cara said, there was one line in particular I think speaks to this; "trophy hunting, which is now called conservation hunting". That very much sounds like an attempt at rebranding. But conservation and trophy are not synonyms. Far more people are involved in conservation hunting than trophy hunting.

I also find Jay's reaction strange, apparently the details around trophy hunting has never come up before. That whole (but short) segment is framed in a way the SGU typically complains about for science journalism. Presenting new findings as if they completely overthrow what's already know, rather than the process being far more gradual, with persistent disagreements along the way.

Incidentally, I dislike PETA. They could do the world more good by shutting down and pointing their members elsewhere. And I think Greenpeace has significant flaws.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2019, 06:22:23 AM by 2397 »

Offline seamas

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #37 on: May 20, 2019, 12:31:16 PM »
There was a pretty good RadioLab episode that involved the ins-and outs of the whole Conservation hunting situation.

I have known for a while that there is and has been a substantial portion of the hunting community that takes conservation extremely seriously, but was always skeptical about people who pay big money to take down some endangered animal.
The episode in question was in regard to hunting an endangered rhino--which sounded extremely alarming to me.
But as the story progressed we come to learn than the hunter isn't getting a license to shoot any damned rhino he pleases, but a specific individual, who has aged out of breeding, but has posed a danger to the other rhinos in the preserve--apparently having killed other individuals.
The task isn't simple, and isn't quite a thing that the game warden would be able to do simply, so the hunter's experience and expertise will result in both a clean kill as well as a large amount of money for other conservation efforts.
There's no such thing as denial.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9310
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2019, 08:06:15 PM »
Are those of you who are criticizing Cara’s comments opposed to all hunting, or only to particular kinds of hunting or hunting of particular species?

Unregulated poaching is the problem - not sustainable conservation hunting. Too many people appear to conflate the two.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline BAWRFRS

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2019, 09:24:42 AM »
But as the story progressed we come to learn than the hunter isn't getting a license to shoot any damned rhino he pleases, but a specific individual, who has aged out of breeding, but has posed a danger to the other rhinos in the preserve--apparently having killed other individuals.

This deserves emphasis; a number of posters above seem to miss this point.

So the hunted animals are going to be killed anyway - and/or their removal by hunting would actually help overall species population. That's a win for conservation.

As for the money generated, well, it's also a win for conservation, as locals hunting wouldn't likely bring as much in fees. And that's voluntary - an outright ban could be costlier to enforce, brings in no hunting fees, and isn't helpful in removing problem individuals from the species population.

I am definitely tempted by the appeal to nature (or naturalistic) - that if we just leave them alone to sort out their own issues with aged or aggressive individuals, that's good (and moral). But upon hearing the pro-hunting argument, it has a certain logic that is hard for me to dismiss. Another test, beyond reason, is empiricism. We could look at the effect upon endangered species populations of bans vs. limited trophy hunting. Obviously we would need to consider any species that are helped by such fees, not just the hunted one. As a simplistic example, if the fees from hunting animal X go 50% to help species X and 50% to help species Y, then the effect on Y must also be considered.

Anyway, sure, the hunters have a stake in their argument, I'm sure they want it to be true (that it helps overall, at the species level, not hurts). That doesn't mean it's not true, however.

This whole thing sort of reminds me of the arguments for and against paper (and harvesting trees). If we banned or attempted to sharply limit paper use, what does that do to the value of trees? All else equal, it goes down, and there's less economic incentive to have forests for productive use. That has second-order effects on air quality, soil, and so forth - tragedy of the commons stuff. It would be a good thing for forestry and the environment for trees to be in high demand, so as long as harvesting / replanting is done sustainably, the promotion of wood use (incl. paper) is a plus.

JMO. Willing to change it based on reason and evidence.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.  - Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2019, 11:07:33 AM »
I tried to send this message using the contact form on the main website but it appears to be broken. I have pasted it below:

Hi, I don't have a question or anything but I listened to Cara's gushing report on her trip to Namibia and just wanted to share my love of this great and beautiful country with her. I just came back from my 3rd trip there (I think I was actually there at the same time as Cara). I'm a photographer and have many photo's of the Namibian people, wildlife and landscapes but my most recent trip was to southern Namibia where Cara really HAS to go in the future. I would be honored if she got to see my work at my website. And yes she is right - you can't just visit this place once!

This is Namibia's landscapes from the southern part of the country:

 http://www.mordenohare.com.au/portfolios#/namibia/

Keep up the good work. As a patreon member I like the extra content you guys do and am very interested to see the direction things go in the future. Love the show! Oh and if you are curious Steve I also have a bird photography gallery on my website.

Regards, Morden.


WOW! WOW! WOW! Just wow!!! Those photographs are gorgeous!

Note please that the rogues might not read all the posts in these forums, but if the contact form on the web site does not work, you can email them directly at:

info@theskepticsguide.org

Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2019, 11:19:29 AM »

Well, I've got to say I'm a bit disappointed by Cara coming out as pro-hunting. Someone as sensitive to past colonialism should know better. I get the impression she did not really challenge the economic statistics that were being presented by a conference which was paid for by a hunting lobby...

Cara made it clear that the hunting she was talking about was allowing hunters to kill specific individual animals that had been selected for culling. The department of government in charge of maintaining the wildlife populations regularly kills individuals that are sick or otherwise judged to be detrimental to the overall health of the herd. Rather than pay people to kill those individuals, they get people to pay them (obscene amounts of money) for the privilege of doing it.

Personally, I find hunting to be disgusting. But I find the slaughter of domestic animals to be far more disgusting because of the vastly greater number of animals murdered in order to provide an unhealthy food source at an enormous environmental cost.

Cara was not endorsing hunting. She was admitting that the kind of hunting in question serves a conservationist purpose. She also said that she could never engage in such activity. I agree with her: If you are going to actively manage a population by culling select individuals, it's better to get paid for it than to have to pay for it. As always, Cara is a voice of reason.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3047
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2019, 11:21:21 AM »
I am definitely tempted by the appeal to nature (or naturalistic) - that if we just leave them alone to sort out their own issues with aged or aggressive individuals, that's good (and moral). But upon hearing the pro-hunting argument, it has a certain logic that is hard for me to dismiss.

Appeal to nature in this case would be to remove the human population, or to scale it down to pre-agricultural levels. And to stop any exports relying on more than walking. Which would probably work, apart from where the species have been reduced so much that they're dependent on purposeful artificial breeding to keep the populations viable.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2019, 11:24:33 AM »
So trophy hunting is beneficial because of MONEY.
wow, that’s a skeptical approach. if it pays enough it’s science!

No. See my post above.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9398
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #723
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2019, 11:35:47 AM »
Cara's activist self reveals itself again when she keeps using the term "factory farm", a term that she does not bother to define and is intended to evoke an emotional response:

We should have an emotional response to an industry that raises billions of animals in the most cruel and barbaric conditions imaginable, at enormous environmental cost, and then murders them in order to provide people with unhealthy food. A practice that any rational intelligence would shudder to contemplate.

We should not sterilize this industry with warm fuzzy language.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain
personate-rain