Killing people to protect animals?

steddyeddy · 29-07-2012 08:22PM

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 · 29-07-2012 08:26PM

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 · 29-07-2012 08:31PM

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 · 29-07-2012 08:32PM

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 · 29-07-2012 08:41PM

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 · 29-07-2012 08:55PM

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

Richard Hillman · 29-07-2012 09:17PM

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

Capt'n Midnight · 29-07-2012 09:21PM

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 · 29-07-2012 09:40PM

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

Riddle101 · 29-07-2012 09:48PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:08PM

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

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS!!!!!!!

Dangerous Man · 29-07-2012 10:15PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:16PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:22PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:26PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:32PM

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 · 29-07-2012 10:38PM

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 · 29-07-2012 11:13PM

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 · 29-07-2012 11:25PM

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 · 30-07-2012 06:42AM

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.

Scioch · 30-07-2012 07:31AM

Interesting how most people would call the death penalty barbaric but will always be able to justify it to themselves in some way.

Killing someone who poaches rhino's and justifying it by saying he was caught in the act is no different than saying its ok to kill a shoplifter if you catch him in the act.

And this isnt about human life vs animal life its about human actions which contradict the laws and aims of society at large. If you say kill them then I assume all you people support police shooting to kill when hapening on a crime in progress ? A crime is a crime and thats all poaching is, I see no reason it should be treated or seen any differently than any other crime or why the judicial system should be ignored in relation to those who commit this particular crime.

el dude · 30-07-2012 07:42AM

In a way, the kind of hurt and suffering people inflict on their own animals and pets is way more sickening than what the poachers do, who I'd imagine are mostly people who do it just to feed themselves. Yet what happens to anyone here that's found to be cruel to animals, a soft fine in most cases. For really deplorable acts of cruelty that has gone on for years.

bradknowell · 30-07-2012 07:53AM

Someone goes near my dog , its war.
Never gonna happen that anyone goes for my dog with a gun and I go chuck Norris on them, get the gun and shoot them but ya never know.
So yes, I would kill a person to protect an animal.
Them seal clubbers deserve to be killed slowly

IvySlayer · 30-07-2012 08:36AM

I have no problem with poachers getting shot.

Mickeroo · 30-07-2012 12:49PM

LordSmeg wrote: »

Interesting how most people would call the death penalty barbaric but will always be able to justify it to themselves in some way.

Killing someone who poaches rhino's and justifying it by saying he was caught in the act is no different than saying its ok to kill a shoplifter if you catch him in the act.

And this isnt about human life vs animal life its about human actions which contradict the laws and aims of society at large. If you say kill them then I assume all you people support police shooting to kill when hapening on a crime in progress ? A crime is a crime and thats all poaching is, I see no reason it should be treated or seen any differently than any other crime or why the judicial system should be ignored in relation to those who commit this particular crime.

If criminals are armed then I have no problem with the police shooting to kill tbh, if they're unarmed then no it would make no sense.

As for comparing the extinction of an entire species to shoplifting, well not every crime is comparable and the consequences of shop lifting are miniscule in this comparison, by that logic(or lack there of) you could argue a serial killer is no worse than a shop lifter.

If the animal is not endangered then your argument stands up better, I don't think someone should be shot for fishing a river without a license for example. Each case has to be taken in context.

ejmaztec · 30-07-2012 12:58PM

They should stake them out in lion territory, and if the poachers can persuade the lions not to kill them, they should be released without charge.

Scioch · 30-07-2012 01:05PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

If criminals are armed then I have no problem with the police shooting to kill tbh, if they're unarmed then no it would make no sense.

Well if they are shot while armed would only be because they posed a threat to people. If poachers posed a threat to wildlife park workers or those who attempt to stop them then it would be acceptable to defend themselves by taking necessary action.

As for comparing the extinction of an entire species to shoplifting, well not every crime is comparable and the consequences of shop lifting are miniscule in this comparison, by that logic(or lack there of) you could argue a serial killer is no worse than a shop lifter.

No but the point was you are not guilty until proven to be in a court, you have the right to due process. No matter what the crime its still only a crime to be dealt with using the judicial system.

If the animal is not endangered then your argument stands up better, I don't think someone should be shot for fishing a river without a license for example. Each case has to be taken in context.

Endangered or not you cannot justify summary execution. If they failed to stop when told and continued shooting animals then action to stop that would be acceptable. But that goes beyond what poachers do, thats the work of a nutbag with a gun killing things and refusing to listen to authority. For a poacher caught killing an endangered animal to kill them without due process is murder.

So your effectively arguing that the murder of a human being is more acceptable than the illegal shooting of an animal. Its not, it never will be nor should it be. Because it undermines the rights of human beings and the system that protects them.

Mickeroo · 30-07-2012 01:54PM

LordSmeg wrote: »

Well if they are shot while armed would only be because they posed a threat to people. If poachers posed a threat to wildlife park workers or those who attempt to stop them then it would be acceptable to defend themselves by taking necessary action.

No but the point was you are not guilty until proven to be in a court, you have the right to due process. No matter what the crime its still only a crime to be dealt with using the judicial system.

I agree with that, I thought we were talking about a fracas breaking out in a reserve or an armed stand off between rangers/conservationists and poachers. If the poachers are caught alive then they should be trialed of course.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Endangered or not you cannot justify summary execution. If they failed to stop when told and continued shooting animals then action to stop that would be acceptable. But that goes beyond what poachers do, thats the work of a nutbag with a gun killing things and refusing to listen to authority. For a poacher caught killing an endangered animal to kill them without due process is murder.

Some poachers are nutbags with guns unfortunatley. 7 people were killed at an Okapi reserve in the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this month unfortunately. I don't agree with executing them if they're caught alive but at the end of the day thats up to that country's judical system, either way I think a punishment which ensures they don't repeat offend would be acceptable.

LordSmeg wrote: »

So your effectively arguing that the murder of a human being is more acceptable than the illegal shooting of an animal. Its not, it never will be nor should it be. Because it undermines the rights of human beings and the system that protects them.

If its done in defense of an endangered animal, something which is among the last of its kind, then its not murder in my eyes. Human's are animals at the end of the day, we have no more right to life than anything else. As humans we're smart enough to know how we effect the planet we live on and the other things that live here. There's no justifiable reason to kill an animal on the verge of extinction.

I repeat just to be clear, if the poachers are taken alive then they deserve the right to a trial like any other criminal as you said. The punishment they receive is up to the authorities of the country they offend in.

pookiesboo · 30-07-2012 02:04PM

If anyone watched Gorillas In the Mist, I dont see how anyone wouldnt want to give those poachers a taste of their medicine.
We (humans) think we're topdog and everything else is fair game. Like how the great white shark is a protected species in Oz but theyre thinking of lifting the hunting ban because swimmers have gotten attacked by still going in the water after there have been fatalities in the area. Or going into a swamp frequented by crocs/alligators and being attacked. Its their territory and you should beware of the consequences. So yes I'm all for poachers, animal abusers etc getting taste of their own medicine like using their hands as ashtrays or being kicked around a bit.

30-07-2012 02:04PM

Why not capture the poachers and put them in a zoo.
To just look, point and laugh,.......i'd pay.

Killing people to protect animals?

Comments