President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

You, and the link you provided, are not wrong in the logic presented -- in so far as the thinking goes. But the thinking is flawed. What it suggests is a way of conservation that is simply what can be done in a worst-case scenario, like, "Well, since man isn't willing to stop doing this, no matter what, because he's just gotta have his ivory trinkets and take over every piece of land that there is, destroying magnificent wildlife populations until there's nothing left of them because the animals can't possibly keep up with the rate of killing/land-grabbing, let's do this in order to keep things from being even worse for as long as we can," etc. It is, essentially, conservation by attrition -- attempting to slow it just because there's supposedly nothing else we can do.

But there is. People can stop with their own shortcomings and short-sightedness for nothing beyond selfish reasons.

What I'd suggest is conservation by actual addition, truly allowing the wildlife population to actually recover, instead of simply treading water, or worse, declining constantly because the animals can't possibly keep pace with the killing in the face of man's greed and need to "conquer" everything, and just kill things because they can.

One of my brothers once said, "People should only be able to hunt with guns when the animals get to use them, too." I agree.

Again, hunting small game for food, or even population control, is not the same as safari game hunting. The impact of the former is negligible, and, as hunters argue, is probably sometimes even necessary. But that is almost never the case with big-game hunting, where the space is becoming ever more limited and reproduction is truly precious, and not just a proclivity. I don't know much about turkey or deer reproduction, but I'm pretty sure it far outpaces that of elephants, which occurs, generally speaking, only one at a time, in addition to it taking a very long time for maturity to the point of each individual to becoming a viable, regenerating population-growth contributor.

You know, kind of like people. Only worse, and longer.

Try to imagine someone, or something, hunting humans and deforesting the land they actually need to the point of either extinction, or virtual extinction (see the rhino population, among other wildlife). You literally can't do it.

And that, in itself, is why this is all happening to the animals instead.

In a related thought, the rebounding of the environment, and consequently, at least some wildlife, is probably the one great, great thing that has happened as a result of the recent forced shutdown of humanity by COVID-19.

 

But isn't the problem with your thinking being that it comes from the viewpoint of a Westerner? The opinions of the people of Africa who live alongside the wildlife killed on these safaris that offend Westerners rarely come into these conversations.

 

You can even say it here now! I do like how the Brits use it on the regular against any ol' tosser.

As for the paywall issue, it's not a last-six-months thing. And there are plenty of mainstream news sources whose content is available for free online: the BBC, NPR, PBS, the American networks, CNN, etc.

The thread also implies that paywalls are absolute. They are flexible, and they are manipulated to suit the whims of the publisher. COVID stuff has lived outside the Post's paywall for more than a year.

 

Join us next February live from Doral Country Club in sunny Florida, for the 1st Annual Centner Academy Awards! With your host---Randy Quaid! Presented by Goya.

 

Rudy is having a bad day.

 

Hunting/fishing is something where there has always been a gulf between those who have and those who have not. If someone has never set foot in the woods or tied a hook on the end of a line, you honestly can't speak from a position of authority. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just stating a fact.
All hunting does not equal killing Bambi's mom.
True outdoorsmen detest poachers more than PETA does. True sportsmen don't kill for the sake of killing. If someone thinks that's what hunting or fishing is about, then my point is made that they miss the point.
Poachers who kill to sell any part of an animal on the black market should be dropped and left to rot in the sun... an eye for an eye.
Big game trophy hunters should be ridiculed for having big bank accounts and short peckers.

 

I believe Apple, of all companies, was attempting to do this with a coalition of the U.S. major newspapers. Understandably, they were not especially into the idea of Apple doing this. I think that's kind of the rub about any kind of effort like this. There are a couple prestige papers that probably have the clout and leadership to do this - The Times, The Post, maybe The Globe - but why would they? They just want you to subscribe to them for national stories and the wire.

Once you get below that level, I wouldn't trust the fucks at Alden, Gatehouse, Gannett and so on to do anything properly. They're regularly squandering geographic monopolies in the area. There is zero way they have enough foresight to partner on some sort of digital pass.

 

Federal Investigators Execute Search Warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s Apartment

 

Not enough coffee in you, man, to beat the first poster with this.

 

Actually, that's completely accurate. I'd normally have had three cups by now, minimum. Not a drop yet today, BRB.

Should I change my handle to "NotEnoughCoffeeman"?