24
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago

Lol, animals are starting the revolution because Americans won't.

[-] Soulg@ani.social -1 points 1 month ago

Lol, idiots talking out of their ass because they know nothing about anything

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago

Got RL jumped by a wandering boss.

[-] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Stomp the rich!

[-] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Come one guys, that dude was a father and a brother and a son and a husband .

It's a shame his family wasn't there too.

[-] CelestialImpact@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago
[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Get to steppin!

[-] Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 month ago

In Elephant culture they call this a sick move.

[-] altphoto@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago
[-] blarghly@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Although many disagree with big game hunting all Ernie’s hunts were strictly licensed and above board and were registered as conservation in culling animal numbers

Nothing here really indicates that the guy was a bad person, other than some vague categorizations like "he was rich" or "he was a hunter".

I can't say anything about his deeds or misdeeds as a rich guy. But I feel like there should be some context added about big game hunters - namely, that they are important to conservation efforts.

Sport hunters realized probably 100 years ago that unchecked hunting of their quarry would soon lead to the extinction of such species, and thus, the extinction of their sport. Hence, they were a big part of the early conservation efforts of the early 20th century, and typically continue to be big (and organized) advocates of conservation efforts today - supporting the protection of ecosystems and public lands.

Of course, this isn't to say hunters, as individuals or as a group, are without their flaws. You would likely find more than a few climate skeptics in their ranks. But it seems to me that someone who goes out to interact with nature regularly would be a far more sympathetic ear to being swayed than their cousin Jim Bob who just sits on the couch all day watching Fox News.

In particular, there seems to be an idea that hunters are some sort of bloodthirsty killers. But most hunters will explain that they do a lot to limit animal suffering by lining up precise shots and using bullets or arrows designed to kill as quickly as possible. While most hunting done in developed nations these days is done for sport, the hunters do still eat the meat, and they are quick to point out that this is probably the most ethical way to get meat - from an animal who was able to live a good life in a natural habitat, and which then died instantly. Far better than the cow which lived its whole life in a tiny feed lot up to its knees in shit before it was turned into a hamburger. And if you ask them why they hunt, they will talk about spending time in nature, spending time with friends, and feeling like they are taking part in the circle of life in a way humans have been since we roamed the African savannah.

And on a practical level - almost every natural area in the world needs hunters in order to control animal populations. In most areas, apex predators have been brought to near extinction by a number of factors - mostly the destruction of large contiguous areas of habitat for the purposes of farming. The result is an explosion in the population of prey species, which will then have negative impacts on the environment as a whole by overpopulating and overfeeding. Thus there is a need to regularly cull herds. We could pay land managers to do this themselves, of course. But why do that when there is a population of sport hunters willing to pay to do the job for you?

Which brings us to big game hunting in Africa. Africa, you may have heard, is poor. While conditions are improving, Africa remains one of the biggest hotbeds of world poverty, and it is currently undergoing a massive population boom. And adjacent to these populations of desperately poor people, you have the last strongholds of some of the most incredible species on Earth. I have a friend who regularly travels to Africa to help with a small NGO he is affiliated with. As he tells it, the attitude of the average local is "I think they should kill all the lions. They eat people." They think the land would be better used for more farms or more housing, and see poachers as just doing some honest work. African governments are similarly not very interested in protecting these natural habitats - the more democratic ones are typically mostly focused on getting people food, water, shelter, and healthcare on an extremely meager budget. And the more autocratic ones are concerned with pleasing the multinational corporations exploiting their land and quelling populist uprisings. Both the people and the governments must be given a reason to care about preserving their natural environments. An Economic reason. The cold, hard truth is that if you want to save the elephants, you must show the people who control the land that having elephants will make them more money than not having elephants.

Enter: big game hunters. The preserves, of course, get some funding from NGOs and normal ecotourism safaris. But more money is more better, and big game hunters come with money. African preserves face the same challenges as wildland areas in the rest of the world, as apex predator populations dwindle, prey populations increase to untenable levels. They must be culled somehow, so why not let someone pay you for the opportunity? Meanwhile, the apex predators and megafauna themselves will all die eventually. And what is the fate of an aging lion with an arthritic limp? To slowly starve to death, until he is too weak to fend off the hyenas that will tear the flesh from his bones while he is still alive? Auctioning off a hunting license for a dying lion will both shorten the animal's suffering and result in a big payday for the preserve so they can pay to protect all the other lions from poachers.

The great irony being that whenever we see a news story about big game hunting, the comments inevitably cast the hunter as the villian - when instead, they are an active participant in preserving endangered species and limiting animal suffering. Is this exactly the world we would all like to see? No, not really. But solving problems of shrinking habitats and worldwide poverty will take a while, and protecting endangered species with big game hunters' deep pockets is a pretty good solution right now.

[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago
[-] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, I never said it did. I said that money from trophy hunting promotes conservation.

The source you linked seems to have its own bias, in that it promotes Compassionate Conservation, which is more of an ideological argument than a conservation-minded one. I don't have a problem with taking an ideological stance here, but I think it should be recognized as such. And it seems to me that this organization is telling some half truths in the service of its ideological goals.

For example, the headline of the article is that trophy hunting money is not reinvested in communities. But to me, this is moving the goalposts. If the goal is to preserve lions and elephants and their natural habitat, then it is great if we can do that while also investing in local communities. But if the money flows into the pocket of some local corrupt bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat then posts guards to protect the animals from poachers and doesn't sell the land to local farmers, then the goal of protecting the lions and elephants has been achieved. This is why I specified that we must make economic appeals to the people who control the land - which is not necessarily the general public. It is also why I specified that we do not live in an ideal world. If the idea of funding a corrupt bureaucrat while the locals around the preserve remain impoverished turns your gut... well, yeah. The world is full of injustices. We can definitely say it would be better if these people benefitted economically - but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding that every single problem in the world be solved all at once while sitting on our couches in wealthy western nations is most likely not a great strategy for achieving any goal.

Later, the article states that an elephant is worth more over its lifetime for tourists to see and photograph than it is worth as a trophy hunt. Which would be compelling if preserves were issuing hunting licenses on random elephants. But as far as I have heard, they don't do this. The impression I get is that most preserves have strong ties to foreign NGOs which provide both a lot of funding and a lot of oversight. And then of course the preserves themselves know that the elephants being in a lot of tourist dollars by being alive. So of course they aren't going to issue licenses to hunt young, healthy elephants. As far as I am aware, the licenses for hunting species like elephats are issued to individuals to allow them to hunt a single, specific animal which is sick, injured, or otherwise dying. From an economic standpoint, the animal has already provided the full benefit it would provide to the park for safari/photography money, and now the best use of the elephant is for trophy hunting money. And, again, from a humanitarian view, the elephant is being saved from a slow, painful, and often gruesome death.

So if you want to make an ideological argument against hunting, go ahead and make it. But the arguments presented by your source seem disingenuous to me.

[-] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would like to take every big game hunter, take away their weapon and put them in an arena with the last thing they shot. Nobody of these ballless losers would survive.

[-] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They usually payhuge amounts of money to support conservation efforts, killing animals that specifically need to be culled. Generally they aren't poaching

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

its propaganda, most of the big game are already endangered, cats, wild dogs, elephants, etc. especially lions.

[-] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sorry, you fell for billionaire propaganda.

Lions (which is the animal in the above picture) and most other big game like elephants, tigers, any large cats etc (so all the animals that are poached by billionaires) never need to be culled. Most of them are actually endangered species and poaching them is highly illegal. Even stuff like antelopes, water buffalos or some zebra specias are endangered.

Stuff that needs to be culled are animals like deer in europe because we have completely eradicated their natural predators and not culling them would completely destroy the ecosystem as they eat young trees which kills the forest. And even that is only done if you have a license and with strict reporting duties. But shooting a deer is probably not cool enough for mister milionaire who needs a lions head above his fireplace.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

oh yea and elephants are pretty much endangered right now as are the cats in africa. despite the "hunting" it seems like culling is a justification to continue hunting it. when they slaughtered all the old male elephants the younger male ones started to attack and kill other big game, without the larger males controlling them.

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 1 month ago

Just a reminder that these hunts are for the purpose of culling for conservation. This wasn't some dude rolling with poachers.

[-] Surp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

So what you're saying is elephant populations are out of control? Hard to fathom honestly. Now if you were talking about Deer in any state in the USA I'd say ok sure but elephants? No.

[-] coolie4@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Says he was hunting antelope

[-] Surp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

My bad I'm at work so skimmed it and totally fucked that one up!

[-] slothrop@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago
[-] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 month ago

Holy cow that article was 90% glazing this dude.

[-] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 month ago

I'm assuming it's slop because I'd like it to be true.

[-] BreadOven@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

But he was hunting antelope, that's not as bad though? I'm against that type of hunting regardless, but he wasn't hunting elephants. Is the antelope population large?

[-] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

This is a good question. "Antelope" is the term they used because he was hunting a yellow-backed duiker. Which is like the Chihuahua of the antelope world, and no one would know what that is. They're super hard to find, so he likely was out in the bush and got too close to elephants that thought he was a poacher and killed him. Many stressed elephant populations attack any human they see with a gun, even rangers, due to trauma. Also, this guy was a trophy hunter, with a house full of numerous dead animals.

So, in short, this guy needed therapy, not another trophy.

this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
24 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

40096 readers
1150 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS