|
Great News...
(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." |
Great News...
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." ....and the same fate to those who shoot endangered stumps for sport. I don't think anyone here has promoted the killing of any animal unless it be eaten. Are you simply tired of getting 'great white hunter' things shoved down your throat? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Great News...
On 8/11/15 3:19 PM, John H. 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." ...and the same fate to those who shoot endangered stumps for sport. I don't think anyone here has promoted the killing of any animal unless it be eaten. Are you simply tired of getting 'great white hunter' things shoved down your throat? -- As the days pass, your senility gets worse. "Here," believe it or not, is "not" the world. Here is mostly a collection of right-wing garbage. Like you. |
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:22:08 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/11/15 3:19 PM, John H. 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." ...and the same fate to those who shoot endangered stumps for sport. I don't think anyone here has promoted the killing of any animal unless it be eaten. Are you simply tired of getting 'great white hunter' things shoved down your throat? -- As the days pass, your senility gets worse. "Here," believe it or not, is "not" the world. Here is mostly a collection of right-wing garbage. Like you. Answer the question, coward. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Great News...
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"? |
Great News...
|
Great News...
|
Great News...
On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote:
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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... |
Great News...
|
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. |
Great News...
On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? |
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? ....to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Great News...
On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? ...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy. -- Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest. |
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:51:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? ...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy. -- Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest. Now you're catching on. Which would you prefer for an old lion, death by starvation or a quick shot to the heart. Oh, you're a socialist. Probably death by starvation 'cause it's 'cleaner', eh? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Great News...
On 8/11/15 8:54 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:51:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? ...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy. -- Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest. Now you're catching on. Which would you prefer for an old lion, death by starvation or a quick shot to the heart. Are we talking about the king of the beasts or you? Of course, you're just an old, toothless pussycat. |
Great News...
Keyser Söze
- show quoted text - "Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest." To bad those brave great white hunters and their apologists, like the JohnnyMop, wouldn't go and select some ISIS fighters to shoot. It might put some real meaning into their selfish lives. |
Great News...
True North wrote:
Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest." To bad those brave great white hunters and their apologists, like the JohnnyMop, wouldn't go and select some ISIS fighters to shoot. It might put some real meaning into their selfish lives. Oh, they don't critters who can shoot back. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? I already said I think trophy hunting is silly and they would be better off doing their hunting with a tranquilize dart gun, helping the vets take care of the animals but the fact remains, the only way these countries can get the money to run these conservation programs is to allow some limited hunting. (generally targeting old animals that will be dying soon anyway) If you people bitching about this would get off your wallets and send them $50,000- $60,000 each like the dentist, you could save some animals but it is easier to just bitch about it. The same is true here. If PETA put as much money into habitat restoration as Ducks Unlimited, they would have standing when they bitch about duck hunting. |
Great News...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/11/15 8:47 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:10:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 8:08 PM, wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:30:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/11/15 7:15 PM, wrote: 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? Oh...it makes money...so, of course... Saving animal habitat TAKES money but I suppose a socialist like you would just print it or borrow it. Unfortunately the countries where these animals live naturally, tend to be too poor to take care of them and the people would rather poach them for that dirty money you talk about than watch their families starve. Letting a few rich hunters come in generates the revenue to save the majority of the animals while sacrificing a few old sick ones and provides some incentive for the people there not to poach. BTW your article is not about regulated hunters, it is about poachers who were not taking selected animals. Oh, right. It would have been A-OK if they were dentists from the USA who paid for the privilege, right? ...to shoot selected animals. Pay attention, Krause. You're acting like a dummy. -- Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest. Yup. When I duck hunted about 30 years ago. Was also a Ducks Unlimited committee member. We raised lots of money for duck habitat. How much did the PETA, VEGAN socialist communities contribute? |
Great News...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:25:38 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Wow. To shoot "selected animals." Great white hunters and their clients on the loose. Oh, and they raise money for "conservation." Altruism at its finest." To bad those brave great white hunters and their apologists, like the JohnnyMop, wouldn't go and select some ISIS fighters to shoot. It might put some real meaning into their selfish lives. 'Too bad', maybe? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com