On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:39:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/11/15 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:47:50 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

(CNN)Authorities in Bangladesh killed six tiger poachers over the
weekend during a shootout in a national park, police said.

The 45-minute firefight erupted as police launched a crackdown in
Sundarbans National Park, according to SM Moniruzzaman, deputy inspector
general of police in Khulna Range. Five officers were injured in
Saturday's shootout.

Police recovered three tiger skins and five guns, Moniruzzaman said.
The world's critically endangered species
12 photos: The world's critically endangered species

Sundarbans is about 180 kilometers (112 miles) southwest of Bangladesh's
capital, Dhaka.

- - -

Now, if only "great white hunters" from the United States met the same
fate when they shot and killed beautiful animals for "sport."

Why do you think these were "great white hunters"?


Why do you think I thought the tiger poachers were "great white
hunters"? I didn't post or imply that. I was referring to the asshole
"big game hunters" from the good old U.S. of A. who are mostly white
bread. Oh, and the term may even be found in Wiki, to wit:

White hunter is a literary term used for professional big game hunters
of European or North American backgrounds who plied their trade in
Africa, especially during the first half of the 20th century. The
activity continues in the dozen African countries which still permit
big-game hunting, but the "white hunter" is now known as the
"professional hunter."[1] White hunters derived their income from
organizing and leading safaris for paying clients, or from the sale of
ivory.

The popular term Great White Hunter emphasizes the racial and colonial
aspects of the profession, as well as its colorful aspects. The phrase
echoes the privileged status of the white men who earned their living
this way. Depending on the author and intention, the term can be used
straightforwardly, in parody, or as a critique.

I'm using the term as a critique of the "professionals" and their clients.

Got it?

It is also a significant part of the economy of some of those
countries.
Without the hunters, there would not be much money for conservation,
so it is not as "black and white:" as you would want to believe. Folks
like PETA and the Humane Society may get a lot of press bitching about
it but they do not have many people throwing $50,000 - $100,000 to
conserve these animals. The hunters do.

The same thing is true in the US. The biggest source of conservation
money is hunters.

I did ask why the medical community seems to be over represented in
these African hunts. Are doctors frustrated killers or are we just
paying them too much?