Trump wildlife board stuffed with trophy hunters

a reply to: Blaine91555

Trying to say a hunter and a poacher are the same is like saying a paying shopper and shoplifter are the same. Try that bit of false logic in court.

Trying to deny the link between the two when a point is made to show the commonality they have is straight up defensive denial.

Of coarse they are not exactly the same but they both left the store with grub.

We get that one paid and one did not pay but they both took.

That is why i say the group needs to address the squandering of money by corrupt governments and others.

That is why i say the wardens need more power.

Do you understand that under the system we have now we could legally pay to kill all the animals and then claim that oh we paid through conservation to do it so we are not guilty. Our hands are clean!

a reply to: howtonhawky

Attempting to conflate responsible hunters (they do exist) with poachers is more damaging to the situation than you might think or imagine.

In my experience, responsible hunters tend to be the most overlooked force for proper, effective conservation. Similarly, one of the most damaging forces that is overlooked is the ideology that human intervention is "evil" across the board.

Many associate it with the worst examples like poachers or mass deforestation. Not only is that disingenuous, but it precludes any course of action by our species that may benefit both nature and humans in equal measure.

a reply to: Serdgiam

The conflation was not my doing it was done by hunters paying to kill a species that is in decline while the poachers continue to kill them also.

Sorry but i can not forgo facts in lieu of some unseen trial or what have you.

Facts are facts.

There are two main groups of killers of these animals besides ma nature.

The flaws of both have to be addressed no matter where their heart lies.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The conflation was not my doing it was done by hunters paying to kill a species that is in decline while the poachers continue to kill them also.

Lawful hunters cannot hunt animals on the endangered species list.

Only poachers do that.

But why am I even trying to explain this? You've already made up your mind despite being shown how wrong you are.

If you think that the poachers could not make a good case for their need to kill then you would be wrong.

We do not hear about their plight much but they have one too and likely more valid than someone paying for the kill.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: howtonhawky

The conflation was not my doing it was done by hunters paying to kill a species that is in decline while the poachers continue to kill them also.

Lawful hunters cannot hunt animals on the endangered species list.

Only poachers do that.

But why am I even trying to explain this? You've already made up your mind despite being shown how wrong you are.

I did not say that it was legal did i?

In fact i think you just mentioned endangered species list for the first time in the thread by anyone.

reaching

a reply to: Blaine91555

they are both defined by the human action of hunting , the only difference is one does so illegally the other within the confines of the law !

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Serdgiam

The conflation was not my doing

Yes, it most certainly was. Regardless of anything, you decided to perpetuate it.

Sorry but i can not forgo facts in lieu of some unseen trial or what have you.

No idea what you mean by the last part, but let's be clear: opinions are not facts. I recognize that notion is prevalent nowadays, but that doesn't mean its valid.

That said, in some cases I would agree that there is little difference between hunters and poachers. The problem with extrapolating that out to everyone is that its simply not true or factual.

We might simply be having a miscommunication, but it seems you are operating from a foundation of ideology rather than reality. We all do, in a sense, which is why its so imperative to realize it.

I also notice that you didn't place any issues on the "other" side, the ideologically driven "environmentalists." Either it was an oversight, or you don't believe they are detrimental to the situation.

Its in a very different way, but that side of the equation most certainly cause issues that have detrimental consequences.



All that aside, since its more internet debate than anything possibly productive.. what do you think the ideal situation is, and how should we go about achieving it?

I think there are damn serious issues with how our species interacts with nature, but the opposition is just as extreme and outlandish. Everything from agriculture, to hunting, to forestry, to even just general environmental impact CAN be improved. But, the solution of "stop all of it!" is just as unrealistic as our current course, albeit for very different reasons.

Responsible hunters (again, they do exist) are overlooked far too often by the extreme opposition and reasonable suggestions by "environmentalists" tend to be drowned in a deluge of ideology. How do we reconcile that?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Do you understand that under the system we have now we could legally pay to kill all the animals and then claim that oh we paid through conservation to do it so we are not guilty. Our hands are clean!

You've really jumped the shark at this point. Under a good game management system the herds are larger and healthier, which is a fact.

I love a good debate, but not dishonest ones driven by partisan garbage or activism. Once it enters the realm of the absurd, I'm done. Enjoy your debate.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: howtonhawky

Do you understand that under the system we have now we could legally pay to kill all the animals and then claim that oh we paid through conservation to do it so we are not guilty. Our hands are clean!

You've really jumped the shark at this point. Under a good game management system the herds are larger and healthier, which is a fact.

I love a good debate, but not dishonest ones driven by partisan garbage or activism. Once it enters the realm of the absurd, I'm done. Enjoy your debate.

Under a good game management system the herds are larger and healthier, which is a fact.

round and round

i have emphasized that fact all the way

a good working management system is what we are lacking and what i have purposed over and over again

we have been turned over to our collective masters and reason logic are now beside the point

now we are governed by bias and the kindergarten principle