![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More venting, sorry
Jun. 14th, 2016 08:33 amI posted to facebook saying I need to express my rage and grief but that I didn't want to pollute my friends' social media pages.
( so here I go )
( so here I go )
Paying to kill the unicorn?
Jan. 18th, 2014 08:22 pmThere are fewer than 5000 black rhinoceroses left on earth, down from several hundred thousand individuals a century ago. There are a few different subspecies, one of which, the western black rhino, was officially declared extinct last year. The remaining animals exist in scattered locations in about nine or ten African nations, many on managed conservation land. Unfortunately animals in these areas are vulnerable to poachers, who are motivated by the lucrative market in rhino horn "medicines" in Asia. (Which, it probably doesn't need to be said, are medicines only in the deluded fantasies of the afflicted.)
Each African nation manages their wildlife and ecosystems in their own way, with varying degrees of resource commitment and political will. Namibia, where about one third of the black rhino population lives, allows local communities to have some agency in managing their wildlife. Wildlife management includes hunting, both for subsistence and for sport. As in the US, one important source of conservation money is the sale of hunting licenses. Namibia, I hasten to point out, is not selling licenses for the hunting of black rhinos in order to sell their horn. However they do auction off five licenses per year to kill five individuals out of a population of a critically endangered species.
The problem is that the many of these scattered populations of black rhinos are skewed male. There are more male rhinos than are needed to sustain the population. These "extra" males compete with the females for food resources, may kill females and calfs, and one study suggest that their very presence results in lower breeding success in the population. Wildlife managers found themselves in the strange position of recommending killing some animals now to ensure more animals in the future.
Since the opportunity to legally hunt a black rhinoceros is extremely rare, the permits to do so are very valuable. They are auctioned off to the highest bidders, a process which brings the program into the public eye every so often. At the moment, there is much attention being paid to a man named Corey Knowlton, a professional hunter who has hosted hunting television shows, leads high-profile hunting trips, and has personally killed 120 species of animals in the course of them. Knowlton had the winning bid on one of the five licenses, paying $350,000 for the privilege.
Knowlton describes himself as a conservationist, and I honestly don't doubt that he is one. Faced with the criticism that he kills for the thrill of it, he replied "The thrill is knowing that we are preserving wildlife resources, not for the next generation, but for eons." The media coverage around this issue has drifted away from the ethics of the planned hunt to the death threats that Knowlton is now receiving.
I don't believe any of my friends, who with horror posted versions of this story on facebook, are the type of people who would send death threats to someone over this issue. But many of my friends are very upset about it, mainly because of the way the story was framed--as a piece of artillery in the culture war. On one side you have animal lovers and conservationists (who are not always allies--and probably wouldn't be on this issue if the conservationists were better informed) and on the other side you have hunters, who should be conservationists (and mostly are, and historically have been). The first side could be roughly called the left side of the issue, and let's call the hunters' side the right (wing) side. Left wingers are nervous about guns--not all left wingers want to restrict gun ownership, but most of the people who do definitely identify with the left wing. The right wing however has become incredibly extreme on this issue. The gun lobby and the media that are aligned with them have conjured terrible narratives about an authoritarian left wing movement to restrict all guns--this has not coincidentally resulted in the record high sales of firearms in the US.
What I'm saying is that while this issue should be considered on its conservation merits (is culling 5 individual males a good strategy for the long term sustainability of the species?) it is instead part of a left versus right circus of name calling and death threats. I lay much of the blame at the feet of my allies on the left (oh, sorry, my bias is deeply deeply liberal, did I not reveal that yet?) for cherry-picking the parts of the story that they knew would inflame the like-minded. TEXAS TROPHY HUNTER BIDS OVER A THIRD OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO KILL ENDANGERED BLACK RHINO. My reaction, as a newly outed liberal, is this: Is a high-profile auction of a hunting license really the best way to promote the protection of a critically endangered species?
In other words, the real problem here is that the conservation groups in Namibia have TERRIBLE public relations people. The Knowlton family Christmas Card from 2012 doesn't do anything to help the matter.
Each African nation manages their wildlife and ecosystems in their own way, with varying degrees of resource commitment and political will. Namibia, where about one third of the black rhino population lives, allows local communities to have some agency in managing their wildlife. Wildlife management includes hunting, both for subsistence and for sport. As in the US, one important source of conservation money is the sale of hunting licenses. Namibia, I hasten to point out, is not selling licenses for the hunting of black rhinos in order to sell their horn. However they do auction off five licenses per year to kill five individuals out of a population of a critically endangered species.
The problem is that the many of these scattered populations of black rhinos are skewed male. There are more male rhinos than are needed to sustain the population. These "extra" males compete with the females for food resources, may kill females and calfs, and one study suggest that their very presence results in lower breeding success in the population. Wildlife managers found themselves in the strange position of recommending killing some animals now to ensure more animals in the future.
Since the opportunity to legally hunt a black rhinoceros is extremely rare, the permits to do so are very valuable. They are auctioned off to the highest bidders, a process which brings the program into the public eye every so often. At the moment, there is much attention being paid to a man named Corey Knowlton, a professional hunter who has hosted hunting television shows, leads high-profile hunting trips, and has personally killed 120 species of animals in the course of them. Knowlton had the winning bid on one of the five licenses, paying $350,000 for the privilege.
Knowlton describes himself as a conservationist, and I honestly don't doubt that he is one. Faced with the criticism that he kills for the thrill of it, he replied "The thrill is knowing that we are preserving wildlife resources, not for the next generation, but for eons." The media coverage around this issue has drifted away from the ethics of the planned hunt to the death threats that Knowlton is now receiving.
I don't believe any of my friends, who with horror posted versions of this story on facebook, are the type of people who would send death threats to someone over this issue. But many of my friends are very upset about it, mainly because of the way the story was framed--as a piece of artillery in the culture war. On one side you have animal lovers and conservationists (who are not always allies--and probably wouldn't be on this issue if the conservationists were better informed) and on the other side you have hunters, who should be conservationists (and mostly are, and historically have been). The first side could be roughly called the left side of the issue, and let's call the hunters' side the right (wing) side. Left wingers are nervous about guns--not all left wingers want to restrict gun ownership, but most of the people who do definitely identify with the left wing. The right wing however has become incredibly extreme on this issue. The gun lobby and the media that are aligned with them have conjured terrible narratives about an authoritarian left wing movement to restrict all guns--this has not coincidentally resulted in the record high sales of firearms in the US.
What I'm saying is that while this issue should be considered on its conservation merits (is culling 5 individual males a good strategy for the long term sustainability of the species?) it is instead part of a left versus right circus of name calling and death threats. I lay much of the blame at the feet of my allies on the left (oh, sorry, my bias is deeply deeply liberal, did I not reveal that yet?) for cherry-picking the parts of the story that they knew would inflame the like-minded. TEXAS TROPHY HUNTER BIDS OVER A THIRD OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO KILL ENDANGERED BLACK RHINO. My reaction, as a newly outed liberal, is this: Is a high-profile auction of a hunting license really the best way to promote the protection of a critically endangered species?
In other words, the real problem here is that the conservation groups in Namibia have TERRIBLE public relations people. The Knowlton family Christmas Card from 2012 doesn't do anything to help the matter.
Blue Rabbit Urine and kids with guns
Jan. 5th, 2010 07:54 pmI got an email today from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I had to google the acronym to figure out who they were, and their terse message indicated they wanted one of my photos. No offer to pay, just a request for permission and a for a higher-resolution image. They were asking about my blue rabbit urine photo. I'm not going to explain, you have to click that link and read it.
While googling NYSDEC I discovered an album full of photos of child hunters. By which I mean human children who hunt, as a hobby, not people or monsters that hunt children. There's something haunting about a picture of an eleven year old boy hoisting up a 42 pound coyote he's killed. Actually, probably an adult guardian killed the coyote, since I'm inferring that the age for firearms use in NY State is 14 (based on the deer hunter photos). (If I understand trapping correctly, the trapper sets a line of traps in the afternoon/evening, then checks them the next morning; animals are held in place but not killed by the traps, and the trapper shoots the trapped animal.)
And speaking of legally owning firearms, I got my FID card today. It's amusing to me that I got my driver's license just as I turned 30 and now I've gotten my first gun license as I've turned 40. For now, the card simply allows me to transport firearms as needed for work. I can see learning to use a shotgun and/or a rifle at some point (some point after we've moved from Massachusetts), as I think these are useful skills and useful tools. For the record, I am in favor of hunting for food, but I think it's absurd when people call it a "sport." Not that it doesn't take considerable skill, but it seems disrespectful to the animal to put it in those terms. Killing the animal by wrestling it to death, that would be a sport.
If I can find a higher-res image of my blue rabbit urine photo, they are welcome to publish it.
While googling NYSDEC I discovered an album full of photos of child hunters. By which I mean human children who hunt, as a hobby, not people or monsters that hunt children. There's something haunting about a picture of an eleven year old boy hoisting up a 42 pound coyote he's killed. Actually, probably an adult guardian killed the coyote, since I'm inferring that the age for firearms use in NY State is 14 (based on the deer hunter photos). (If I understand trapping correctly, the trapper sets a line of traps in the afternoon/evening, then checks them the next morning; animals are held in place but not killed by the traps, and the trapper shoots the trapped animal.)
And speaking of legally owning firearms, I got my FID card today. It's amusing to me that I got my driver's license just as I turned 30 and now I've gotten my first gun license as I've turned 40. For now, the card simply allows me to transport firearms as needed for work. I can see learning to use a shotgun and/or a rifle at some point (some point after we've moved from Massachusetts), as I think these are useful skills and useful tools. For the record, I am in favor of hunting for food, but I think it's absurd when people call it a "sport." Not that it doesn't take considerable skill, but it seems disrespectful to the animal to put it in those terms. Killing the animal by wrestling it to death, that would be a sport.
If I can find a higher-res image of my blue rabbit urine photo, they are welcome to publish it.
Gun control (without pit bulls this time)
May. 5th, 2007 05:01 pmAs long as we're talking about gun control (we were, trust me)...
For a while now, gun control has been the one issue where I didn't fall completely in line with the stereotypes of what a liberal position is. My feeling is, even though the second amendment begins with the nonsense phrase "A well regulated militia" it still ends with the declaration "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I know that countries that have stricter gun control than the U.S. have fewer gun fatalities, suggesting that it's good public safety policy, but I still feel that gun control is probably unconstitutional.
I can't be as articulate as I would like to be on this issue, but fortunately my friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
g_weir has been, and so I direct you to his thoughts.
For a while now, gun control has been the one issue where I didn't fall completely in line with the stereotypes of what a liberal position is. My feeling is, even though the second amendment begins with the nonsense phrase "A well regulated militia" it still ends with the declaration "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I know that countries that have stricter gun control than the U.S. have fewer gun fatalities, suggesting that it's good public safety policy, but I still feel that gun control is probably unconstitutional.
I can't be as articulate as I would like to be on this issue, but fortunately my friend
g_weir has been, and so I direct you to his thoughts.Old Post Relevant Again.
May. 4th, 2007 03:21 pmAs the Massachusetts Legislature is pondering the "dangerous dog problem," the specter of specific dog breed bans raises its quasi-genocidal head again. I have much to say on this issue, not surprisingly, and I've said a bit about it before. In case you missed it, here's a re-run of You'll get my Pit Bull when you Pry the Leash out of my Cold, Dead Hands ( Read more... )
( Read more... )After looking at pictures from the protest against a proposed pitbull ban, I realized there was a parallel between gun bans and dog breed bans. Gun rights activists used to say (maybe they still do; I live in Massachusetts where gun rights activists are as common as blue lobsters), "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Meaning, when law-abiding gun owners are not allowed to own guns, the criminals who own guns will keep theirs, being criminals and all.
Likewise, if they ban pitbulls, responsible owners will have to give them up (or become criminals), while irresponsible owners (who are already criminals: most pitbull attacks involve dogs that are some combination of unleashed, unlicensed, un-vaccinated and/or kept in inhumane conditions) will continue their criminal ways.
The difference in the comparison, is that law-abiding gun owners would have you believe that they are somehow preventing crime and gun violence. Of course, the reality of it is that law-abiding gun owners (and their children) end up using their guns to kill one another much more often than to defend their homes. (And if they live in Massachusetts, they will get arrested if they shoot a trespasser, even one caught in the act of burglary.)
(I love parentheses so much, I thought I should do an entire paragraph in them. There is some controversy about what the US constitution says about guns--or rather what it means. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that really means, is up for discussion. We don't have any "well regulated Militias." The only thing of note any militia has done in recent memory was kill 168 tax accountants and their children in Oklahoma City. So much for the security of a free State. If we are planning on amending the constitution, perhaps amending the Second Amendment, so that fewer than 30,000 people per year are killed by guns in this country, rather than restricting the right of some people to get married, would be a good idea.)
Law-abiding pitbull owners, on the other hand, can actually be said to be doing some good. We are rescuing, socializing and providing meaningful, loving lives for animals that would otherwise be abused, neglected or used as weapons. We are compassionately rescuing dogs from misery, and death. We helping to preserve a breed type that was, less than a century ago, a symbol of the nation, revered as a war hero and as the best family dog one could have.
Further reading:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm
Likewise, if they ban pitbulls, responsible owners will have to give them up (or become criminals), while irresponsible owners (who are already criminals: most pitbull attacks involve dogs that are some combination of unleashed, unlicensed, un-vaccinated and/or kept in inhumane conditions) will continue their criminal ways.
The difference in the comparison, is that law-abiding gun owners would have you believe that they are somehow preventing crime and gun violence. Of course, the reality of it is that law-abiding gun owners (and their children) end up using their guns to kill one another much more often than to defend their homes. (And if they live in Massachusetts, they will get arrested if they shoot a trespasser, even one caught in the act of burglary.)
(I love parentheses so much, I thought I should do an entire paragraph in them. There is some controversy about what the US constitution says about guns--or rather what it means. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that really means, is up for discussion. We don't have any "well regulated Militias." The only thing of note any militia has done in recent memory was kill 168 tax accountants and their children in Oklahoma City. So much for the security of a free State. If we are planning on amending the constitution, perhaps amending the Second Amendment, so that fewer than 30,000 people per year are killed by guns in this country, rather than restricting the right of some people to get married, would be a good idea.)
Law-abiding pitbull owners, on the other hand, can actually be said to be doing some good. We are rescuing, socializing and providing meaningful, loving lives for animals that would otherwise be abused, neglected or used as weapons. We are compassionately rescuing dogs from misery, and death. We helping to preserve a breed type that was, less than a century ago, a symbol of the nation, revered as a war hero and as the best family dog one could have.
Further reading:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm
