African conservationists 'shoot to kill poachers'

[anonymaus]

Some conservation organisations in Africa are operating a shoot-to-kill policy against poachers, to protect endangered species, a study says.

An academic from the University of Manchester told the BBC that private security firms and mercenaries were being used to train game rangers.

Prof Rosaleen Duffy has researched the issue for 15 years for a book to be published this month.

She said these military-style campaigns were occurring across the continent.

Ms Duffy says the development of nature tourism has meant international pressure to save high-profile species is intense.

full article

[anonymaus]

I must admit that I felt a bit of a thrill when reading the headline; poachers have gotten away with too much for too long. However: taking a human life, even that of a poacher, to save a beast does not sit well with me at all.

[Óttar]

The lives of these endangered species animals are worth more than poachers. This new policy is most pragmatic and commendable.

[Wölfin]

A shoot to injure (then arrest) policy would be a better middle ground. Killing (or in this case fighting fire by fire) is disturbing no matter the reason and should be avoided when possible. The medical fees would be covered at their own cost, after all they had it coming.

[Wyn]

I could probably never shoot anyone myself, but you can't really fault the idea of defending an animal against a poacher. A BBC report I saw showed a dead rhinoceros that had been drugged and had its horn severed with a chainsaw. Rather bloody and very cruel.

If you can shoot an intruder in your home, then you can shoot a poacher trying to kill your animal.

But shooting to injure rather than to kill would be preferable, in my opinion.

[anonymaus]

you can't really fault the idea of defending an animal against a poacher.

Yes you can, and very easily, since they are unthinking beasts and poachers are at least nominally human. Unless, of course, somebody owns the beasts and considers them valuable property, in which case:

If you can shoot an intruder in your home, then you can shoot a poacher trying to kill your animal.

The amusing part about this situation is the fact that the poachers are being aggressively countered mostly due to the financial value of endangered species, whose continued existence is managed by their owners selling hunting licenses to wealthy tourists at a sustainable rate.

It's one of the funny things about life, like Bono unironically supporting global corporatism to help poor Africans...

[Eldritch]

Ms Duffy says the development of nature tourism has meant international pressure to save high-profile species is intense.

Some conservation groups regard the protection of the gorilla, rhino and other endangered species as more important than human life, she says.

The poacher wants to kill the rhino so he can grind its horn to dust to be sold to horny Chinamen who want their dicks to get temporarily bigger (or smtg).

The conservation groups want to keep them around to make money off tourists, eco- and otherwise.

Does it bother me that they're willing to shoot to kill to protect their investment? I suppose it should, but it doesn't, not in the least.

However I don't think this'll make any difference one way or the other.

[Wyn]

Yes you can, and very easily, since they are unthinking beasts and poachers are at least nominally human. Unless, of course, somebody owns the beasts and considers them valuable property, in which case:

I do agree, I guess. As I say, I couldn't shoot anyone myself, but if somebody is entering your land to kill your property, then defense is defense. I was saying to someone on the day that I saw the aforementioned BBC report that the poachers are lucky that somebody does not lie in wait and shoot them. It is not really something you can't defend against. But as I said, shooting to injure is absolutely preferable. And only if you have to shoot.

[Eldritch]

The amusing part about this situation is the fact that the poachers are being aggressively countered mostly due to the financial value of endangered species, whose continued existence is managed by their owners selling hunting licenses to wealthy tourists at a sustainable rate.

It's one of the funny things about life, like Bono unironically supporting global corporatism to help poor Africans...

There's something that bothers me about regarding (magnificent) undomesticated animal species in the wild as property, but that's probably realistically just about the only way to save them -- or at least to effectively combat poaching.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I must admit that I felt a bit of a thrill when reading the headline; poachers have gotten away with too much for too long. However: taking a human life, even that of a poacher, to save a beast does not sit well with me at all.

Who's a beast? Next time I see a Rhinoceros mugging someone I might change my mind. At least the ones I see in zoos are cool. The Africanized 'humans', not so much.

A shoot to injure (then arrest) policy would be a better middle ground.

But as I said, shooting to injure is absolutely preferable. And only if you have to shoot.

Not possible (same applies to police officers dealing with criminals). It's not like the movies, you can't precisely shoot someone in the calf. To hit a person, you have to aim in the center of the body mass, which can end up killing the person.