Last edited by theticalanti; 02-29-2016 at 12:53 AM.
you know when I heard this story I thought "what an incredible EIE move"
One other thing is that I don't really see this as underhanded on her part. As a popular artist who has other sources of revenue like concerts, endorsements etc. she has a lot less to gain and more to lose in this than the smaller artists she's standing up for.
How about SEE where the se recognizes social power territory and exerts influence
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
The lion was lured. Apparently this is a common practise with poachers to lure Lions out of the park, making them 'legal'.
Anyway I'm glad this stroke a cord in society.
Its not like the lion was an isolated incident.
Also, comparing north america wildlife parks to ones in africa?Following the incident, court documents emerged showing Palmer was fined $3,000 and given a year's probation after pleading guilty over the illegal killing of a black bear in Wisconsin in 2006.
Palmer had a permit to hunt bears within a certain area near Phillips, in the north of the state. But on September 1, 2006, he was part of a group of people who killed a black bear 40 miles outside this permitted zone, according to the court documents from April 2008.
Realizing what they had done, the group agreed that "if any authorities were to ask where the bear had been killed, they would say" it was hunted within the correct area, the documents added.
They transported the carcass to a registration station where they certified the animal had been killed legally, the documents said, adding that the body was later taken to Minnesota, where Palmer lives.
Palmer was charged with knowingly making false statement to an agent of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, having "falsely stated that he thought the bear had been killed legally" during interviews with officials the next month.
According The Associated Press, citing the Minnesota Board of Dentistry, the dentist was also the subject of a sexual harassment complaint settled in 2006. He admitting no wrongdoing and agreed to pay a former receptionist more than $127,000, the AP said.
He was also convicted in Minnesota court in 2003 for fishing without a licence.
Also, yellowstone national park has wolves, bears, and cougars that wander out of the park, and we've still got laws and restrictions on killing them off park property.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
While in north america, wolves, bears, and cougars hold territories. They're prey doesn't migrate as far, and we've culled out most of our migratory animals such as bison, and claimed the lands for beef cattle and agriculture. It's easier then to establish where the natural territorial lines would be. But still ranchers at the borders of these territories have problems. Often trying to push into the wildlife territory, which encourages the wildlife to make use of what the rancher's growing there.
Nature cannot be contained, not for long. It's always getting past manmade boundaries. Ask any gardener. Weeds blow in. Animals fly over, climb over, climb under, and push through fences. Animals didn't agree to being placed on a reservation. We can't make them sign papers, nor even argue with them that it's for their own safety. It's not the animal's fault it gets poached and killed. It's the poachers fault. Any person who makes a living off hunting animals, and/or a hobby of hunting them...it is their duty to know the legalities,locations, and seasons where they may legally do so. It is not the animal's duty to abide by man's rule. It's man's duty.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
apple - t. swift thing is set up
"...Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly" (the Skin Horse)
I am very suspicious of any human who really enjoys trophy hunting for sport and pleasure and not of necessity. I haven't met many but the few I have made me real uneasy. I wondered if they ever thought about hunting humans the same way. I had a creepy great uncle who was a taxidermist and I hated having to visit him. I am not even sure how he got the animals but there was a whole room filled with them. Very creepy! I think he might have eaten some of them too, like the deer, but was afraid to ask. Just one of those things that clashes with how I would feel if I killed an animal just by accident. I hit a cat with my car once and I was sick over it for days but I also get sick when I run over roadkill. *shivers*
It might be cheaper and safer to fence the people.The offense of fences
Most African governments, however, don’t have the money to invest in expensive fencing projects. Fences can cost up to $3,000 per kilometer (0.62 miles) to install. Fencing around very large areas, such as the seventeen-thousand-square-mile Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania (a popular destination for African safaris), which is home to the largest remaining lion population in the world, would cost about $30 million. And that’s just the beginning of the obstacles a fence presents. If a small lion population is enclosed, let’s say, managers would need to ensure genetic diversity by introducing new animals every few years. And if the lions of a particular population make their living by pursuing migratory prey such as wildebeest, fences would be impractical.
Full article: http://goodnature.nathab.com/are-fen...e-for-african-
I have been watching "Zoo" on CBS and have been thinking about the wide spread scenario of animals fighting back. I don't want to be around if that ever happens.
Last edited by Aylen; 08-02-2015 at 12:14 AM.
I never even suggested that migratory routes were unpredictable. Extensive is not the same thing as unpredictable.And if the land is so unpredictable for all the animals migrating,
I was pointing out that you can't treat migratory based animals the same as you do territory based animals, and expect the same results from them.
I also included instances in which things have been done to help the migratory animals continue their migratory lifestyles without coming into stressful contact/pressure by daily human activity. Iow, as knowledge and understanding grows, people are coming up with solutions to problems like these. But it still costs money, resources, and time to implement.
You only get picky on typos, William, when you have little else of relevant substance to present yourself. I deleted the rest of your strawman attempt.*Their prey. (typos stick out to me). Regarding your point, do you know if ranches surround Hwange Natonal Park? Furthermore, in the problem you describe - are the ranchers currently using fences to keep the wildlife away from what they're growing? (correct use of they're)
As for fences, I know that ranches in the usa use fences, eletricity, traps and other such methods to try to keep wolves, bears, coyotes away from their cattle, etc. The fences aren't very successful at actually keeping the predators out. Nature WILL find a way to slip past them.
Somewhat recently (up to a few years ago), I read of a boy somewhere in africa who figured out how to make affordable electric fencing to keep some main predators out of village holding pens. He was traveling to different villages to show them how they could do the same with items they had on hand. While this is a helpful solution for small village pens, it's not the same cost effectiveness as electrically fencing entire migratory routes. But again, this is an example of solutions already being sought and implemented as best as the people can.
You suggested fences to contain the animals, and now, here, you yourself talk about how animals CAN be contained...in cages. My earlier cage comment had already jumped a few steps ahead of you, you're just now barely catching up to yourself.We're not talking about weeds, silly, we're talking about lions. Yes, nature is ultimately victorious in life, but animals can most certainly be contained. Have you ever been to an American zoo? THERE you can see cages and walls which keep wild animals like lions, gorillas, etc., contained for their entire lives. I haven't seen a lion fly over a fence before.
And please stop playing your f'n stupid games. Just because a lion doesn't fly doesn't mean he can't climb over nor dig under, nor otherwise get past a fence. You're smart enough to be able to figure that out. And this is the kind of stuff that demonstrates your blatant game playing. I know you enjoy arguing when you're bored. Maybe find a more productive way of entertaining yourself than trolling.
You're just trying to push the fence idea to save your wannabe 'underdog' dentist regardless of logistics. The same underdog who's lied and falsified evidence in order to get away with killing a bear outside of established hunting areas. This guy wasn't some naive newbie at hunting. He's hunted many animals, in various places over the world. And he's been caught doing so illegally...at least twice now. And the only reason he got caught again this time, was because he happened to shoot a known and tracked lion, thus unintendedly providing evidence of his wrong-doings. If it had been any other untracked lion, he would have gotten away with his illegal activity.You're just trying to dismiss the fence idea here with an incomparable example which would still practically work.
As for importance? Cecil himself isn't all that important aside from his genetics which will now be lost as the new pride lion takes over and wipes out Cecil's cubs, thereby reducing lion population AND genetic diversity for said lion population. Well, and the data he was unknowingly gathering for wildlife specialists.
As a symbol, however, Cecil stands out at this time, showing the world some of the ways hunters and poachers skirt or break relevant laws. His death brings awareness to the world, and a reminder that this world has lost numerous species and many more are at differing levels of risk of being lost to us forever.
Yes, we have millions of cats and dogs being euthanized in the usa each year, and that is tragic. But their deaths don't make the poaching and destroying of wildlife animals any less disasterous. And vice versa.
People choose which battles they are willing to fight, which ones have more meaning to them, personally. For you, it's fighting for the innocence of a wannabe "underdog" who got caught (again) doing something not completely legal. For me, I was only interested enough to point out that he's not so naive and innocent. I am not invested in any of this to continue playing your games. I have more meaningful battles to fight. Laters.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Fine, I'll play a moment longer to maybe clear things up.
There's a couple of issues to this incident. So let's clear some up first.
According to my research today,
1) shooting a collared animal is not illegal.
2) shooting a national park resident just outside the park is not illegal. (Questionable ethics though if achieved via baiting.)
3) shooting an animal in an area where there is no quota issued for that species IS illegal.
4) quota swapping is legal (though not ethical) IF it's done BEFORE the hunt.
There was no quota to kill a lion on the land where the lion was killed. (illegal)
There had been no quota swap PRIOR to the hunt taking place. (illegal)
The hunter is experienced in hunting legalities and experienced in trying to slip through legality loopholes.
The hunter has previously been caught lying about where he killed an animal, and even tried to move the animal and cover up his illegalities of it. (Known breaker of hunting legalities.)
Gwayi/Gwaai Valley is right next to the Hwange National Park which the lion lived in.
The Gwaai hunting area had overhunted their area and mismanaged their natural resources, and so now rely on overflows coming out of the national park. The animals in the national park are sustained in part by good management, and lots of money spent on the park, obtained via tourist and photographic areas. Gwaai hunting areas offer nothing to the national park in return. They used to act as a buffer area, and were initially intended as such, but ..yeah, not for a long while. Many people have been fighting to get the Gwaai Valley to become an extension of Hwange National Park for its potential buffering effects, to reduce park losses, and because of other things like the dam providing benefits to animals like the elephants and buffalos.
Normally when an animal wanders even briefly out of the park's domain to the north/east, they come across a railway border, at which point the animal is likely to be shot by hunters patrolling the railway lines and boundaries. The animals were born, bred, and fed in a photographic area. They are generally used to the presence of people and cars, they are very trusting and easy hunting.
Shooting one of these animals is totally legal, IF there has been a quota permitted for it. Supposedly quotas are distributed after authorities consult with ecologists and decide that a specific hunting quota won't adversely affect the area.
There is no permited quota to shoot lions in the Gwaai area.
The lion was shot on a shooting farm called Antoinette, which borders Hwange National Park. This land, supposedly, had been in dispute and repossessed.
One of the hunting guides, Bronkhorst, said "we were never meant to hunt on the land where the lion was shot. At the last minute I had to divert from a hunting area about 8 miles away." "If I had been able to take the client where we were due to be, this would not have happened."
So, at a last minute effort, the guide took the hunter to an area that they were not permitted to shoot lions at. Hence, the hunt was illegal.
Once again, it's not illegal because the lion crossed the railways out of the park. It's illegal because NO lions could be legally hunted in that area where the lion was hunted and shot.
So then what, if anything, can be done to prevent such a thing from happening again?
Fencing was brought up as a possible solution over enforcing hunting rules and regulations. That it's better for the animals if they are blocked from traveling away from the national park, or otherwise having the freedom to follow their resource finding instincts.
Support for fencing was given by the idea that someone in the usa had never been to an animal preserve in America that hadn't had their animals contained with either cages or fences.
Yet, Yellowstone National Park in the USA does not contain, cage, nor fence their animals into their park. They deem it inappropriate and detrimental to do so.
Wild animals migrate in response to severe weather events, changes in resource availability, and to gain relief from environmental pressures. Unfortunately, migrating eventually brings the animals into conflict with agriculture and development. But staying causes problems too. Each park has a food limited seasonally available carrying capacity. Locations and sizes of parks are influenced by competition with agriculture, development, and transportation systems.
When deciding how to manage animals one must consider biological, social, and political logistics. One also needs to be aware of potential behavioral changes in the species, and other unintended effects including adverse effects to wildlife viewing and visitor enjoyment.
Basically, it's a way more complex issue than solved by 'just put up a fence’.
For example, the bison in Yellowstone National Park. Annual migration allows bison to access necessary resources for their survival. If their migration is restricted or shortened by human intervention, their numbers will largely be determined by food availability... with substantial winter mortality.
Fortified fences could be used to limit bison migrations, but those fortified fences would also impede or serve as a barrier to the movements of other wildlife species.
Fencing also creates a zoo-like atmosphere which is generally inconsistent with wildlife management principles. (Wildlife preserves were never meant to serve as zoos...but to aide in the management of wildlife and environmental resources.)
Supplemental feeding of migratory animals would encourage them to terminate their migration and remain in the park. However, the animals would become increasingly reliant on these provisions while continuing to feed on vegetation in the vicinity and degrading surrounding habitats. (In laymen terms, the ground isn't given a chance to recoupe from grazing and movement damage if the animal is always on that land. We see what happens when chickens are kept in pens, how their scratching, overgrazing, and high-nitrogen poop destroys the area, poisons nearby water, and renders the area unable to grow/support vegetation. We also see similar happening when cattle aren't rotated between pastures. Or horses. Or pigs. Or goats. Etc.) These outcomes are contrary to the conservation of the wild bison population and policies for managing biological resources. Most natural resource managers attempt to avoid the supplemental feeding of wildlife, and of forcing migratory wildlife to remain in a single fenced in area. No matter how large the fenced area might be.
(Also, fences are meant to keep animals in or out, not to let them through. Fencing a park isn't just fencing in one animal. Also, fencing creates an artificial separation from genetic diversity for multiple species.)
Unfortunately, migratory bison cause problems for cattle ranches nearby, road clogs, and other conflicts between them and social and political development. Yellowstone's solution is to pay attention to how the bison are handling things, and implementing cullings to help keep things in check.
The culling solution is pretty much the intended purpose of Zimbabwe's national park buffer zones and shooting quotas. In the case of lions, there are rules as to which lions can be culled and which not. For example, a lion must be at least 6 years old, and must not be known to be heading a pride, nor part of a coalition heading a pride, with dependent cubs (18months old or less), due to risks of infanticide.
The lion in question was 13 years old, and so matched that part of the criteria. However, the lion was known to be in a coalition heading a pride, with dependent cubs. Now, some might say that the hunter and the guides didn't know who the lion was that they were illegally hunting. But consider how a lion hunting guide bordering the Hwange National Park known for its photographic tourism with a well-known and much loved lion...couldn't recognize said lion. Claimed to not even know of said lion? Unlikely. Unfortunately not particularly provable either way.
My proposed solutions?
1. Increase the buffer zones around the park to reduce instant death from 'stepping over the line'.
2. Hunting grounds breed their own animals, manage their resources, and encourage sustainability of their chosen career, rather than relying on baiting park animals across the line. iow, work with/for the national park rather than against it.
3. No baiting. If buffer zones have increased, then baiting would be harder to do anyways. But seriously, if you're going to hunt an animal, find your animal where you are allowed to hunt it.
4. Hunting permits should be carefully considered by those who are knowledgeable, and allow for permits that might either specify a specific troublesome animal and/or exclude a pivotal animal. With government representatives present for these specialty hunts to ensure compliance.
And in final,
My curses were "We're talking a shit ton of miles that these animals move through."Originally Posted by William
And "And please stop playing your f'n stupid games."
To the first, it wasn't even close to harrassing you.
To the second, it referred to
We're not just talking about lions silly. We're talking about ANIMALS that reside in the national park, any national park, and whether fences can actually contain these animals without the fence being a cage. Fyi, zoos are NOT the same thing as a national park or wild animal preserve. They serve different purposes and are managed differently as well.Originally Posted by William
One of your games I accused you of was you deliberately changing my "Animals fly over, climb over, climb under, and push through fences" into something stupid like "Lions can fly over fences." This is but one example of why I see you as being intellectually dishonest in discussions. The other reason is because you've also openly admitted to playing such games with people.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I'm reminded I'm still in America, when a wealthy music star complains about her lack of income, wins the day, and becomes a hero for it.
I am not pro-fences. Nature and time will make sure it is not a long term solution. The earth brings things back into balance eventually and time wears on human structures without diligent and probably expensive upkeep. $30 million can feed and give medical care to a lot of people. How can poor governments justify spending that much money on a fence while people starve and die of diseases like ebola... They could just ban pleasure hunting altogether and revise import and export laws. I am sure there are people far more intelligent than me working on these issues so I will let them sort it. I find ways to live in harmony with the wildlife around me. I don't walk at night to avoid any predators. I would not want them killed. It is my responsibility to stay out of their way. There are people who live in harmony with their wildlife in Africa too. It is easy to sit in America and think a fence would be a good solution but I don't think it will be simple or affordable to fence in Africa. I find it sad that the dentist paid $50k just to kill a beautiful creature.
The idea of fencing reminded me of Australia's fencing efforts.
By 1904, despite the vigilance of the boundary riders, rabbits had been found west of the incomplete fence and the Government directed that a second fence be erected parallel to the first and 80 miles west of it. The fences became known as No.2 Fence and No.1 Fence respectively. Later still, No.3 Fence was constructed, connecting Fences 1 and 2 before running due east to Bluff Point (see map on page 35). In 1907, the Fence was at last complete and the Chief Rabbit Inspector sang its praises: ‘I went along portions of the R.P. Fence to the north of Burracoppin recently on the outside (east) and there was not a blade of grass to be seen, not even enough to feed a bandicoot. On the west side there was grass from three to six inches high and any amount of old feed.’ 13. Broomhall, Annual Report Rabbit Branch (see ref 3, page 84)
But such praise was short-lived. Within its first decade, the Fence was in disrepute and by the end of its second, following wartime shortages in labour and supplies, it was in disrepair. 14. Thomas R. Dunlap, Nature and the English Diaspora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. In 1930 the chairman of the Yilgarn Road Board wrote to the Director of Agriculture: ‘This Board is of the opinion that the Rabbit Proof Fence has outlived its usefulness as the rabbits are more numerous inside the Fence than on the outside and would suggest that both the Fence, and the netting particularly be made available to the adjoining settlers.’15. F.H. Broomhall, The Longest Fence in the World. Perth: Hesperian Press, 1991. And yet for each person who decried its usefulness there was another who considered it a protection. Moves to dismantle the Fence were resisted by those farming to the west of it, who now regarded it as protection from dingoes and emus.16. ‘So bad did the emu plague become, with the birds trampling down crops, disturbing lambing ewes and damaging fences, that the farmers called upon the Defence Department to send a section of machine gunners up country to the worst affected areas to destroy the emus with rapid fire. The gunners duly arrived and went into action but could not achieve the results expected of them and they were soon withdrawn.’ FH Broomhall, The Longest Fence in the World. Perth: Hesperian Press, 1991.
As a barrier against the Rabbit Menace, the Fence was a failure, not only because of the vagaries of the Australian climate but because of the all too human flaws in its design and construction: ‘slanted support posts that allowed rabbits to climb over, carelessness or warped timber that left gaps at gates, loose soil or sloppy work that allowed rabbits to dig under.’ 17. Thomas R. Dunlap, Nature and the English Diaspora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. As David Stead, ‘Formerly Special Rabbit Menace Enquiry Commissioner to New South Wales Government’, pointed out in his 1935 publication, The Rabbit in Australia: History, Life Story, Habits, Effect upon Australian Primary Production and Best Means of Extermination, such fences were ‘A GIGANTIC MAKE-BELIEVE’. He was scathing in his condemnation of a similar fence on the Queensland-New South Wales border:
There is one thing outstanding very clearly in the matter... whatever effective work the fence did... it absolutely failed in an effort to prevent the movements of Rabbits from one part of the State to another... From the beginning, it was largely a gigantic make-believe – a danger, too, inasmuch as it, like other large fences, lulled the landholders most concerned, into a false sense of security, which numbed his own endeavours and really assisted the spread of the Rabbit. 18. David G. Stead, The rabbit in Australia : history, life story, habits, effect upon Australian primary production and best means of extermination. Sydney: Winn & Co., 1935.
Having touched upon the great effort that went into constructing and maintaining what was, in the end, a decidedly un-Rabbit Proof Fence. I’d like to switch from microscope to telescope to make a brief attempt at understanding how it was ever considered to be a reasonable proposition. A glance at the bigger picture will shed light on some of the forces at work behind the realisation of the Fence. Zooming out reminds us that it was built in a time when ideas of progress and evolution had become entangled; social Darwinism, with its stress on inherited and environmental influences, was ‘in the air’. Zoom a little further, prior to the currency of such thoughts, and we are struck by the presumption, on the part of the settlers, that Australia was up for grabs.
I have never hunted, never having the desire to do so. I would if I had to for survival. I went with my dad once, but brought my camera because I would rather shoot pictures than a gun. Anyways, since most of my meat comes from a slaughter house, I am removed from the process, but I recognize that this is a necessity, even though I feel bad for the animals. I think it is important to treat animals as humanely as possible. I would never condemn someone for trying to survive or stock their freezer for the year through hunting, but trophy hunting is immoral in my opinion. It is not in balance with nature. We shouldn't take more than we need of nature, even though I fall way short that myself.
I have a hard time killing any animal. I just envision how that must feel to the creature and since most animals have a central nervous system, it seems logical that they are capable of feeling pain, and hence suffer. I think intention matters. Not everyone thinks so. To them, they are just animals, not of the special human kind, and their nature is reduced to something that is expendable. The closer the animal is us, the harder it is to kill because they likely experience sensation in an increasingly similar way. For instance, I don't have as much compassion for a fly, mosquito, or spider(I do try to let many of them outside) and much more compassion for mammals. I hate seeing animals suffer and will opt to end their life it they are. Sometimes it seems frivolous because nature can be cruel and most animals are amoral and there is much suffering in the cycle of life, but it is in the nature of human beings to feel compassion and to care.