Prince William: 'We must do more on illegal ivory trade'

[Jasandjules]

How about we execute anyone found in possession of "new" Ivory?

[AJL308]

Jasandjules said:

How about we execute anyone found in possession of "new" Ivory?

Or, alternatively, how about the places which have Elephants allow a sustainable number of them to be shot by people who pay shed loads of money to do so and then sell the 'new' ivory for shed loads more money? The places which already do this - notably South Africa - do not have issues with poachers.

You can still execute people who have new ivory which has been poached if you really want to so everyone is happy.

[Cotty]

Always makes me wonder what will happen if they all get hunted to extinction

[Digga]

Cotty said:

Always makes me wonder what will happen if they all get hunted to extinction

Me too. Just extraordinary creatures to witness first-hand. You really do appreciate their intelligence and empathy for one another. Sure, they can be frighteneing, lethal even, and ruinously destructive, but it would be a poorer planet without them.

[AJL308]

Digga said:

Cotty said:

Always makes me wonder what will happen if they all get hunted to extinction

Me too. Just extraordinary creatures to witness first-hand. You really do appreciate their intelligence and empathy for one another. Sure, they can be frighteneing, lethal even, and ruinously destructive, but it would be a poorer planet without them.

They won't be. They might be poached to extinction but not hunted.

Even then, they won't be extinct in the areas which allow sustainable hunting and population management like South Africa does.

[toasty]

Won't somebody please think of the pangolins!

[Cotty]

AJL308 said:

They won't be. They might be poached to extinction but not hunted.

Poached, hunted still dead

[AJL308]

Cotty said:

AJL308 said:

They won't be. They might be poached to extinction but not hunted.

Poached, hunted still dead

The point which you spectacularly missed - possibly intentionally - is that it is poaching which may cause them to become extinct, not legal and managed hunting.

[Cotty]

AJL308 said:

The point which you spectacularly missed - possibly intentionally - is that it is poaching which may cause them to become extinct, not legal and managed hunting.

No I missed it as I was not aware that you could hunt an elephant legally.

[Halb]

Cotty said:

No I missed it as I was not aware that you could hunt an elephant legally.

Not even sure how something like that could work, considering gestation and numbers, even putting aside the fkwittery of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3746...

Maybe it's best that these intelligent creatures die out (along with other megafauna)? Then there will be no retards to hunt them.

[Cotty]

Halb said:

Maybe it's best that these intelligent creatures die out (along with other megafauna)? Then there will be no retards to hunt them.

That's why im curious what would happen after they are gone. Would the poachers just move onto another endangered species?

[AJL308]

Halb said:

Not even sure how something like that could work, considering gestation and numbers, even putting aside the fkwittery of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3746...

Maybe it's best that these intelligent creatures die out (along with other megafauna)? Then there will be no retards to hunt them.

It works fine in the places which allow it. If animals are worth more to the population via legal hunting than they are through poaching then they won't be poached. Hunting is regulated while poaching is obviously not.

It really is that simple.

[AJL308]

Halb said:

Cotty said:

No I missed it as I was not aware that you could hunt an elephant legally.

Not even sure how something like that could work, considering gestation and numbers, even putting aside the fkwittery of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3746...

Maybe it's best that these intelligent creatures die out (along with other megafauna)? Then there will be no retards to hunt them.

I take it that you also consider all the Chinese people who are buying the illegal poached Ivory and Rhino horn to be 'retards' as well then? No one ever seems to make that point.

[Halb]

Cotty said:

That's why im curious what would happen after they are gone. Would the poachers just move onto another endangered species?

That's why it may be better that the megafauna die out, eventually we'll just be left with cows and sheep.
Then maybe fkwittery will decrease? :jester?

AJL308 said:

It works fine in the places which allow it. If animals are worth more to the population via legal hunting than they are through poaching then they won't be poached. Hunting is regulated while poaching is obviously not.

It really is that simple.

With numbers tumbling, the gestation being almost 2 years and the habitat falling, it doesn't look that simple for a creature like the elephant. Not everything has the same answer.

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

I take it that you also consider all the Chinese people who are buying the illegal poached Ivory and Rhino horn to be 'retards' as well then? No one ever seems to make that point.

Yes, they're retards, and yes, the point that it is the Chinese/east that drives a lot of this is made every single time this issue crops up. In the very articles I post

[AJL308]

Halb said:

With numbers tumbling, the gestation being almost 2 years and the habitat falling, it doesn't look that simple for a creature like the elephant. Not everything has the same answer.

So why is it that countries which allow managed hunting don't seem to have a significant problem with illegal poaching?

Gestation times are irrelevant. You only shoot old animals who won't be reproducing anyway. Nor do you need to have a large supply of huntable animals. It isn't like producing broiler chickens or keeping a sport fishing lake stocked. It's extremely expensive so one animal brings in a lot of cash.

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

So why is it that countries which allow managed hunting don't seem to have a significant problem with illegal poaching?

Gestation times are irrelevant. You only shoot old animals who won't be reproducing anyway. Nor do you need to have a large supply of huntable animals. It isn't like producing broiler chickens or keeping a sport fishing lake stocked. It's extremely expensive so one animal brings in a lot of cash.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/
"Trophy hunting isn’t stopping poaching, especially in countries that have a poor record of protecting their wildlife.

Six countries—South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia, and Tanzania—have many of the remaining savanna elephants. Along with Cameroon and Gabon, these nations allow sport hunting regardless of the level of decline in their elephant populations. (Botswana, which has more than 130,000 elephants by one recent estimate, has banned trophy hunting.)

According to the latest figures, Tanzania’s elephant population has fallen from nearly 110,000 in 2009 to just over 43,000 at the end of 2014—a 60 percent drop. Mozambique’s elephants declined from an estimated 20,000 to 10,300 during the same period. In Zimbabwe, a recent survey shows massive losses in some parks."

[MarshPhantom]

We should hunt the Royal Family instead.

[Elderly]

Cotty said:

Always makes me wonder what will happen if they all get hunted to extinction

I was told by a guide in Tanzania that natural selection means that elephants with the smallest tusks are becoming the most plentiful (because they are not poached) and that their progeny have smaller and smaller tusks and hence will become even less attractive to poach.

[Halb]

MarshPhantom said:

We should hunt the Royal Family instead.

It wouldn't last that long?