Well it's kind of like me wanting to save a struggling zoo, but I'll only give the money if I get to kill one of my least favorite animal, say a Zebra. I actually like Zebras but they're pretty boring in the zoo so fuck them. Then the zoo gets my millions.

So, the people protecting the animals are cashing in on an animal they can't save and know it like they're a Mexican border town, and a white stuck up entitled rich piece of shit gets to be an endangered animal murderer scott free because she's a woman.

I love this planet.

How about this: the cheerleader is pretty horrible, but Boxxy would do more good if she explored the complexities of economics and conservation in Africa. In other words, educate (like you recommend), but as an "and" and not an "instead of". Even if the cheerleader isn't the only person killing carefully selected animals, that's no reason to give her a pass.

This reminds me, on a vastly different scale, of walkathons for various causes: I'd rather just give to a charity than make a teenager walk a certain distance and then I pay in proportion to the discomfort endured. If I believe in a cause I should support it on its own merits, not just if suffering is part of the package.

Every year I give money to my favorite non-profit radio station, but they don't let me hunt the DJ of my choosing. Suddenly tote bags are looking pretty lame.

woo, outraged white hipsters to the rescue!


so how much have you guys donated to African wildlife preserves?

how many park rangers have you paid to risk their lives to arrest/keep away heavily armed poachers?

did you donate several offroad vehicles and pay for maintenance and gas for multiple years to patrol thousands of acres of preserves?



ALL ISSUES ARE BLACK AND WHITE! FUR IS MURDER! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

SolRo: give me 0,000 and we'll see whether I devote it to worthy causes on their own merits, without first demanding that I get to kill something.

I do get the connection between hunters and conservation, but it doesn't follow that hunters should be applauded for delighting in the kill.

>>Even if the cheerleader isn't the only person killing carefully selected animals, that's no reason to give her a pass.

I don't see any reason not to give her a pass. I'm not a vegetarian , so I can't object to the killing. And if its about rare, endangered or exotic species, she's helping preserve them in a very real practical way.

Bort, is someone here cheering her for killing?

and your argument is dumb. it's about getting 0,000 from people that wouldn't have donated in the first place, and instead might have paid poachers much less to kill the animal.

and my question is about how much have you actually already done to help prevent poaching of these animals, not what you'd hypothetically do if you have money to throw away.

because that's the problem, all the good thoughts and well-wishing don't do shit on the ground in Africa.

When I've killed eight endangered animals, you can say this bitch's money makes her morally superior to me.

"We must kill the animals to save them."

That is one for the records. Pure doublethink.

Critical, schmitical- you'd still smear jizz on any part of her she'd allow. Don't lie.

"and my question is about how much have you actually already done to help prevent poaching of these animals, not what you'd hypothetically do if you have money to throw away."

So you are cheering the activities of shitheels simply because they happen to be wealthy enough that some of their wealth trickles down to people who could use it. Jesus, SolRo, when did you become a Republican?

"'We must kill the animals to save them.'

That is one for the records. Pure doublethink."

There is an element of truth to that, sometimes, from some perspectives. Like you won't find me faulting the preserve in question because they're doubtless doing the thing they need to do to survive and continue their work, and yeah it's a fucked up situation. Culling herds is also sometimes a necessity where there is a shortage of predators (the deer population in NE Ohio, for example, can and does get out of control).

I tend to reserve my frustration for people who think "we must kill the animals because yee-haw!"

What does her mom think of all this?

>>This reminds me, on a vastly different scale, of walkathons for various causes: I'd rather just give to a charity than make a teenager walk a certain distance and then I pay in proportion to the discomfort endured. If I believe in a cause I should support it on its own merits, not just if suffering is part of the package.


I do agree with this. Verb-athons have always pissed me off, for this exact reason. Worse, there's the element of spectacle; Verb-athons are less about doing good, then they are about being seen to do good. You're not giving to charity, you're buying a shot of smug self-satisfaction and giving corporate sponsors an advertising platform. If you want to run/bike/jump for charity, I'll just send the money direct, today, to whatever charity you want; you can then do your thing whenever, at your own leisure.

The issue is not about whether the murder of animals is morally wrong or not. Zebras and other wild animals (both live and dead) don't give a flying fuck whether you are a moral person or not or whether their rights are being respected or not.

I don't hunt and I don't like sport hunters but if their interest in hunting game can be channelled into conservation efforts that also involve community members and convert those very same community members in stakeholders of the conservation effort rather than simply a threat to it then it is a good thing.

Someday hopefully Africa won't be a broke shithole that can't afford conservation for conservation's sake but until then we have this and this is (MUCH) better than nothing.

What the hell do you think a bribe is, dummy? It's basically payment for something that isn't legal. It is not legal or at the very least, ethical, to kill endangered animals.

Also the white rhino went extinct last year. She killed one of the last remaining ones.

I'm kind of shocked by how many people equate hypocrisy with not wanting American citizens to partake in obviously illegal or unethical activity. Not everyone can afford to donate to African villages. I mean, *I HAVE* via Heifer International so allow me the honor of saying FUCK THIS CUNT.

Thank you.

Instead of killing it, couldn't they just charge people like k a whack to kick it in the balls?

>>What the hell do you think a bribe is, dummy? It's basically payment for something that isn't legal. It is not legal or at the very least, ethical, to kill endangered animals.

What do you think a permit is, dummy? You sort of slipped the she surly bonds of your own definition there.

And if what she's dioing is helping preserve endangered species, how unethical can it be?

>>What does her mom think of all this?

Lisa supports Catie, at least when dealing with me, as is right and proper for her to do.

Five stars for Lisa doing her job, as always, immaculately.

>>That guy
Critical, schmitical- you'd still smear jizz on any part of her she'd allow. Don't lie.

Okay, I won't.

If you're old enough, you probably have an adult friend with an attractive daughter, and in the darkest corner of your mind, the fantasy hypothetical goes like this:

Wouldn't . Wouldn't. Never never would. It would make me a horrible person, I'd hate myself, my friend would hate me, the consequences would be horrible.

But you suspect that if your friend's attractive daughter really wanted to talk you into it, she could. Isn't it fortunate, therefore, that such a random, nonsensical and disgusting thought will never ever enter the confines of her lovely young head?

so creepy

Oh, grow up.

Fortunate for her, not for you.

I'm old enough not to want to date women in their 20's, but I reserve the right to fuck them if they want. Blame me if you dare, liberal puritans of poetv.

I might happily fuck any number of 22 year old women, but not this one. It would be like lighting your cigar with the Mona Lisa.

I just...ugh. Ew. Ugh all over. I need to shower now.

This is true.

Just make sure that black person isn't Ice T. Because then you're playing The Most Dangerous Game!

er.. I mean, because then you'd be Surviving the Game, never mind.

People are animals and vice-versa, but if you want to be like her, they have to be exotic. Just go to one of the places in our country where blacks and poor people are exotic, and plug away.
If you're in California, may I suggest Orange County or Bel Air or Malibu or Los Gatos or Silicon Valley?

Don't ever do any pest control in your home because that's totally the same thing as genocide I mean getting rid of termites is exactly the same thing as Hitler exterminating Jews in the ovens amirite?

I'm thinking about adopting hard-to-place children and running a fight club with them. So when the media catches wind of it, some Internet goober and argue on my behalf and say shit like "WELL HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU ADOPTED????"

Hay guyz, like and retweet this video, every thumbs up saves acres!

I dunno about Ice T, but I do know Mr. T is a very old member of the herd. His snarling gold draped head mounted over my fireplace would be completely AWESOME! We need a kickstarter for this very modest of proposals.

That's pretty funny, memedumpster. Throw in 0,000 on top of that joke, and you'll have a valid point. This is what the people who are actually on the ground trying to preserve exotic animals have come up with over many years, That's really all i know If you have a better idea, I think that would be great, especially if it came with 0,000.

Do you think 0,000 was a correct value for that animal? By what standard do you measure this. I bet it's the "this is the most money we could bilk out of an affluent Westerner for this animal's life."

You're saying that me NOT killing these animals makes me inferior to one who will pay to kill one.

Do you not have a moral compass at all? I mean, mine is fucked, but god damn.

0,000 isn't the cost of the animal, it's the cost of your moral superiority. That's how much it costs to be better than her, in terms that the animals might actually give a shit about.

I disagree with your premise that money defines morality, but I am pretty much alone on the planet in that, so there's no fault in you siding with the status quo.

I concede that the monetary based meritocracy undermines any argument I may ever make towards the earth regarding anything until such time as I can buy life and death. That no measure of accuracy to reality is valid unless backed by an agreed upon dollar amount. That the laws of nature and God themselves do not function without at least a few bucks tossed in from the unworthy.

>>I disagree with your premise that money defines morality

Not morality, moral superiority. You can be moral for nothing, but moral superiotity is going to cost something.

Actually vegans get to be morally superior for nothing. So anyone who is a vegan, identify yourself. Step forward and claim what's yours.

Right here. What do I win?

Memedumpster, who cares whether you're better than her or not?

Perhaps if you thought about conservation efforts by focusing on (you know) conservation efforts rather than "WHO IS SUPERIOR ON MY WHITE MIDDLE CLASS MORALITY SCALE" then you might be able to see that standing back and pointing fingers does absolutely nothing about the topic at hand, which allegedly was conservation and not "Who is cooler Memedumpster or Spoiled rich redneck brat?".

What's with all the yuppies thinking that anyone even mildly supporting the conservation method automatically loves hunting and the twat pictured above?

>>Right here. What do I win?

I think that, as a vegan, what you've won, is the moral right to employ arguments replacing animals with humans, such as

>>>Can I hunt black people if I donate to the NAACP?

Or she could just, you know, give them the money.

I never thought I would ever utter these particular words ever in my life but "I agree with memedumpster and Boxxy."

I also agree with Memedumpster and Boxxy. Just giving them the money would be best. \But they have actual figures for permit fees vs donations, and according to them, you me, memdumpster and Boxxy are all wrong.

This is what the people who actually have to raise the money do to raise the money .Whenever you get used to it, this will still be what the people who actually have to raise the money do. I'm not really saying it's the best way, cause how the fuck would I know? I only know that it's what they do. If I decided that it wasn't the best way, it would still be what they do. You're all taking the anti-reality position, and that's usually a loser.

Different questions. You're talking about "is it effective for the people running the reserve to raise money by allowing limited hunting?" I'm talking about "is the woman at the center of this controversy a stupid asshole?"

The answer to both of these questions is yes.

Even if the money is used to preserve animals, it doesn't make her any less of an entitled scumbag. She doesn't care about the animals and could just as easily have daddy donate the money. Any benefit to animals is incidental. The only differences between her and poachers is a) poachers do it to earn a living whereas she does it solely for fun; and b) it's illegal for poachers but she's rich so it's ok.

>>Even if the money is used to preserve animals, it doesn't make her any less of an entitled scumbag

Absolutely true. If hating entitled scumbags is more important to you than protecting endangered species, then I suppose you're totally justified.

>>Even if the money is used to preserve animals, it doesn't make her any less of an entitled scumbag. She doesn't care about the animals and could just as easily have daddy donate the money. Any benefit to animals is incidental. The only differences between her and poachers is a) poachers do it to earn a living whereas she does it solely for fun; and b) it's illegal for poachers but she's rich so it's ok.

That is NOT the only difference between her and the poachers. I believe that the animal for the legal hunt is actually chosen by conservation officials. I'm just starting to learn about Sometimes it's an animal that is determined to be a danger to the other animals. The poachers will kill a pregnant female. They don't care; they probably don't even know. It is vastly vastly different.

>>She doesn't care about the animals and could just as easily have daddy donate the money. Any benefit to animals is incidental.

If you care about the animals, the benefit to the animals is what counts . Everything else is incidental. I don't care if she's nice or abrasive or likes Harry Potter or has a penis. And if its all about how you don't like rich Texas cheerleaders, (not my favorite kind of person) stop acting like you really care about the animals.

Poachers are most often indigenous hunters, whose families have hunted the land for tens of thousands of years, and who are now forced to either hunt forbidden game for decent money, or live in crushing poverty thanks to centuries of socio-economic exploitation by prosperous, foreign, morally-upright people like you and I. They aren't very good conservationists, no, but it's silly to demonize them, just as it's silly to demonize young Miss Jones.

Mr Holmes, why not just give local hunters limited exotic hunting rights? Hire them to kill trophies for Westerners, or to act as "guides"? That way, poachers get to poach, cheerleaders get to shoot Simba, and the conservationists get more money and have to to deal with fewer unexpected deaths?

Stopping poaching is obviously very important. It's awfully defeatist thinking on your part to think that this is THE ONLY WAY. I think it's great that they're trying to curb poaching. But that's not why she did it, and she would have gone and shot those animals if the money went elsewhere.

As to this being solely about my distaste for rich cheerleaders, nice try. I feel about her much the same way as I feel about Jim Bob going out and shooting deer. She kills animals for the fun of it. I consider her to be a sick person. Does the fact that she's a rich white going to Africa to exploit the local situation for her own personal enjoyment exacerbate things a bit? Yeah, but then there's sort of a historical record of that kind of thing happening.

As to caring about animals, it's pretty ludicrous for you to point fingers and accuse others of not caring about them when I presume you have a stomach full of them right now.

What's with all the yuppies thinking that anyone even mildly supporting the conservation method automatically loves hunting and the twat pictured above?

>>Stopping poaching is obviously very important. It's awfully defeatist thinking on your part to think that this is THE ONLY WAY.

It's the way that people who are charged with stopping poaching have arrived at. That's all I really know. That's all that really matters. As I've said before, if I were to decide that this is not the best way, the people whose job is to stop poaching would still be doing this.

I've been watching Catie Wayne for 4 and a half years, and I know her to be highly ethical, and much more intelligent than most of you would suspect, and i believe roughly the same thing about memedumpster.

But ethics are about the big picture. What Catie did wrong here was to literally laugh off the conservation argument, which creates a lie about the consequences of her actions. And this lie creates death threats. It was the death threats and rape threats against Catie Wayne that were the beginning of my awakening to the anti-feminist politics of the internet. So this is kind of extra extra horrible to me. Catie is not acting out of misogyny, but how many of these hunters are female? Once again we have a hate campaign against someone and ... well, shazam! Once again, It's a woman! I believe that misogyny played a role in fiorging this phenomenon, but some people just love animals. Acually so do I. Can't believe I just got another kitten!

It's worth noting that usually, a woman who is plucky enough to attract attention like this usually ends up the winner: Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Black, and Catie all came out on top.

What Kendall Jones is doing here is arguably way more ethical than the DELICIOUS ham sandwich I bought yesterday at Jimmy John's, which probably came from a factory farm. I didn't ask.

What you're missing is a bunch of stuff that was already discussed. Would you like me to type it all again, in all-caps?

The animals are not endangered because of regulated legal hunting, they are endangered because of poaching, and she is bringing in resources to oppose poaching. If you care about the fact that she's a horrible slag, or if you care about her as a symbol of decadent privilege, of if you care about your sense of offended morality like meme\dumpster, that doesn't matter.

If you care about THE ANIMALS, and the future of endangered species, stopping poaching is the only thing that does matter, and not a single person who complains about her is doing as much about that as the horrible slag.

She's a conservationist in the same way that Monsanto is feeding the world. Both things are technically true, and yet they're going about it in the most evil way possible.

So hunt the poachers down. Go after the ultimate predator, if you have the balls.

Unless you leave their skinned corpses flapping about I doubt anyone will come looking for a small team of poacher scum deep in no-mans land.

You don't even have you pay. Awesome!

Agreed.

My country recently passed a TOTAL BAN on hunting. The law was passed by bureaucrats in the capital city and the decision was aligned with the ongoing marketing of our country as a conservationist haven.

As someone who is directly involved in conservation efforts and actually goes out there and sees what's going on the results of the law are quite disastrous. Hunting was already extremely limited and we already didn't have enough resources to control poachers, but now basically, aside from having a piece of paper with a clause on it that says "HUNTING=BAD" really nothing has changed, except for the fact that before, landowners sometimes chose to keep their land forested because they could charge hunters a fee to hunt on their property. Now that land has no use to them so they'd rather cut down the forest and plant non-native lemon trees or whatever, effectively destroying a habitat and limiting the amount of biological corridors that still exist.

Meanwhile, that very same government allows Chinese vessels to slaughter sharks en masse 'cause that happens out in the open seas and nobody gives a fuck and if tourists don't see it they won't stop coming.

People, things are not black and white. Resources are limited and the world is not perfect. These "canned hunting" places in Africa are not the perfect solution (nor are they run by philanthropists), but they are much better than nothing. The key point here is that they transform the local hunters into conservationists. If the economy and culture of Africa changes then they some day may be unnecessary, but until then, it's been one of the few methods that has actually RAISED the populations of endangered animals.

Why can't we judge a reprehensible pastime, regardless of the fringe benefits? Hunting for sport is cowardly, and the only thing more cowardly are the people who participate in it hiding behind conservation. Broad loves to shoot beautiful things in the head. Own it and stop pretending like you want to save the world.

Because if every person with a taste for righteous condemnation goes on a crusade against people like her and turn licensed, regulated hunting into social suicide then people will stop going to these places and the locals will revert to their version of unlicensed hunting without any regards for population numbers, age or type of specimen killed and endangered animal species that have been on the rebound will once again decline and become extinct?

You can judge all you like. You can judge cheerleaders, you can judge gays, you can think furries are perverts and Obama's a Muslim and Boxxy's a minx and whatever else you'd like. The point I think people like Mr Holmes and Mr Nu'man are trying to get across here, is that your judgement takes a back seat to the more important issue, which is conservation.

I don't think anyone here REALLY disagrees with anyone else. We all seem to recognize that Miss Jones is a bitch, and we all seem to recognize that conservation is a complex issue, with culling being an integral part of the system. We differ only in where we focus our attention, and as Holmes-'man points out, the people who choose to focus on Miss Jones being a bitch are in danger of throwing the baby out with the blood-soaked bathwater.

Their point is that rich people get to kill whatever they can pay for for any reason they want and fuck me, I don't have the cash so I should shut up.

I already said lack of money invalidates my arguments, but no, you all wont shut up and just be happy you won the "let's be rich and shoot animals for a flimsy doublethink reason that makes us feel good because we're wired to worship the rich and not self aware enough to realize it."

I lost all respect for a lot of poeTV people in this video.

I really don't want to post here anymore, so I wont.

So it's class resentment, and not concern for animals, that motivates you people?

Which would you rather see: endangered animals go extinct because conservationists can't afford to protect them against increasingly desperate Third World hunters who are so poor they can't even afford food, let alone iPhones, or some rich girl you've never met get egg on her face for the crime of being slightly better off than you are?

PROTIP: comments made by hypergraphic shutins (homer, solro, etc) should not be considered representative of "poetv people" as every village needs an idiot or two

good contribution azmo, really good job of explaining how you're useless.

memedumpster your heart seems to be in the right place but it seriously requires some high caliber mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that we are not against regulated hunting because we are victims of celebrity hype culture.

meme; get over yourself.

this is the lesser of the evils.

this is exploiting the rich to get our hippy dippy ideas funded.

and no one gives two shits about how much money you have or don't have.

We've been pointing out that being 'internet angry' and morally superior about something doesn't fix the problem on the ground. 500,000 internet sympathies doesn't amount to anything, and even if it generates a relatively insignificant boost in donations to conservation programs, those will also trickle away as this particular moral outrage fades from people's memories.

The point about money is that money is what protects the animals. Protecting the species is a higher moral good than not protecting the species. Posting angry rants is not protecting the species. Regulated hunting to raise money for conservation is protecting the species. Morally better than not protecting the species.

To be fair, most of these hunting permits and reserves did not originate from conservationist efforts or conservationists.

Most of these reserves were created by people who figured out that there was $ to be made from hunting. Now, these people actually have to put some effort in maintaining healthy populations and they can't allow Kimberly here to come in and shoot that last Rhino, partly because of pressure from conservationist NGOs and other stakeholders who are trying to shut these places down, and partly because it actually does not make business sense to let Kimberly shoot that last Rhino. These people have an interest in maintaining healthy populations of animals, except that interest is merely financial and not moral. Still, it has given some excellent results in areas where populations were down.

Of course a lot of conservationist NGOs are arguing these places should be shut down because it's "not right" to hunt animals and also because they somehow assume that magically the funds that won't go to these places would go into their pockets (which is not going to happen).

I'd love these places shut down eventually, but not until they are needed. As of right now I feel they are needed. Unless you have the resources to truly and effectively control poaching, it is better to regulate hunting and turn it into a tool to help conservation efforts.

Azmo, two things. First, define "exploitation". Second, so what? Conservationists would not be against killing aging members of an endangered species if that species was NOT endangered and there were tens of thousands of the things backed up against your front door. But that's not how the world works, is it?

One can invent all sorts of fanciful wish-fulfillment scenarios - for example, I'd love it if genetic technology allowed us to grow lions in test tubes. Then lions wouldn't be endangered, and everyone, rich or poor, could grow lions of their own and hunt the majestic beasts in the comfort of their own backyards. Cheerleaders get to hunt, lions get to live, conservationists get to go home. Everyone wins! But that's not going to happen right now, hell, that's not even going to happen in the foreseeable future. Bringing it up is just pointless; bringing it up and then acting like everyone else is an idiot for not anticipating my wonderful world of test-tube lions is frankly bizarre.

Now there's no reason to resort to name calling or being hurtful; that is, in itself, part of a "fallacious thought process". I think if you took a step back for a minute and read what people were actually writing, you wouldn't be quite so quick to anger.

adam: i agree that there is benefit to these activities and commoditizing the limited resource is a logical idea. like you, i want these places shut down as soon as possible.
i think there is value in decrying the moral grey area this operates in, as to simply accept it without discussion could be seen as condoning it in perpetuity. this practice is, at best, a 'lesser evil.'

homer:
1. i'm using it in the standard way
2. taking advantage of the weak for self-interest is objectionable to me
3. i agree, bringing up test-tube lions is bizarre

Azmo, it's definitely not the perfect solution. In fact, if and when we get to the point of having resources to no longer need this type of reserve, you can be certain that these people will lobby not to get shut down and by then they may have some serious money and political leverage to support their cause.

Still, as of right now I see no serious successful alternatives for a lot of the African Nations.

Well then, what is the "standard way", how you use the word? And as for test-tube lions being bizarre, well, quite. It's a noble idea, but it's not practical, and it's being wilfully ignorant about the realities of the situation. Think about why you find test-tube lions to be so bizarre, and you might begin to see why people have a problem with anti-hunt crusades.

The reality on planet humanity is that species that are exploited often thrive. Which one of these things has a history of being an endangered species: cows, chickens, pigs, komodo dragons.

don't forget to add that keeping poachers away from an area to protect one species for limited financial exploitation also protects other species and the land itself from being completely exploited.

I was on a Safari as a kid some 25 years ago and it's absolutely true. Lions behave quite similar to your average house cat in that they sleep 20 hours a day and pretty much only hunt at dawn and at dusk.

The rest of the day they all hang out in the shade of a tree out in the Savannah and do pretty much nothing. They were by far the easiest animal to find and see up-close.