smirkley said:
I challenge you to do alot of reading on the species.
I've done many hours of research on this topic over the last few days. So yes, I'm familiar with elephants.
I am aware of elephants' intelligence and their social structure. I also am aware of their ability to communicate vocally up to 5 miles away (only one-upped by man, and maybe dolphins), though most of these vocals cannot be heard by man. Recent evidence suggests that elephants, by stomping on the ground, can create vibrations in the earth's crust that can travel for up to 20 miles. Elephants have apparently figured out how to communicate long-distance with these stomps. They are highly intelligent animals.
But I fail to see how this is relevant. Elephants are wild animals, and people have been hunting elephants in Africa for over 200,000 years. Who is anybody here to say that it's wrong? Due to elephants' massive size, humans are their only natural predator nowadays.
If the elephants were actually endangered, it would have been wrong for Bob to hunt them. The African savanna elephant is NOT endangered. The two countries of Zimbabwe and Botswana together contain over two-thirds of southern Africa's savanna elephants, and they are actually considered
extremely over-populated in these countries (est. as much as 2:1 over the ecologically sustainable limit).
Also, if it had been an older female, it would have been wrong. They are vital for the young. I'm not condoning orphaning baby elephants. Males are not involved in the raising of the young though.
================
smirkley said:
But none of that is the point of this thread.
Being stubborn AND off-topic is just an effort to derail the topic at hand.
Then tell me what the point of this thread is. Because the thread was created before Bob Parsons issued a response to the press. I was under the impression that we were discussing whether Bob Parsons was in the wrong or not for going elephant hunting; which is how this thread started (take a look at the first page). Of course, related conversation is acceptable IMO.
================
smirkley said:
Why did Bob lie !!
Who did he suspect would believe it??
He is just patronising the immediate press. Thats it.
Here is the quote that I'm assuming you are referring to (because most of the
report was in the journalist's words):
When you see me smiling in that picture, I'm smiling because I'm relieved no one was hurt, that the crop was saved, and that these people were going to be fed; the type of smile when you get a good report card or achieve a goal
Yes this is mostly bull****. He was obviously smiling because of a successful hunt (although the positives he listed were true). I can see why one might feel insulted if they felt that Bob expected them to believe this.
================
smirkley said:
Do a little (non-clinical and non-selective) reading before you spout off with your "stubborn" arguements.
This isnt a high school debate class, and one should be open, unless they are just trolling for their boss.
By stubborn I meant this definition:
tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield. Not this definition:
refusing to move or change one's opinion. I make a strong effort in life to try to stay open-minded, and to put myself in others' shoes. That's why I don't automatically accept the western notion that elephant hunting is wrong.
I'm no hunter. I personally could never harm an animal except as a means to survive. I try to be realistic about things though, and realize that the predator-prey relationship is a necessary component of mother nature.