If someone is hunting it for food, then that is a different matter. That is different from the 'poachers' the rest of us are talking about.

While they may legally be considered a 'poacher', I don't think the term describes them properly- they are more like a hunter.

Either way though, it's not that hard just to hunt a legal prey animal. Don't kill a lion or a rhino or something leave those alone.

You have liked this post!

This is a pretty interesting thing to think about so here's my two cents. Keep in mind, poaching can be hunting on property without permission, hunting protected wildlife, hunting animals without license, hunting out of season, hunting over a limit, etc. and hunting can include trophy hunting which isn't illegal on its own.

Poaching can cause poverty and be spawned by it. The killing of elephants and rhinos is typically by commercial poachers as depicted in this event with helicopters, jeeps, automatic weapons, complicated traps, working in units, etc. By commercial poachers, I mean an extension of organized crime taking advantage of poverty stricken areas and corrupt governments who turn a blind eye. The ivory from tusks are mostly sold to Asian markets due to being a status symbol as well as use in folk medicine (despite rhino horns being made of the same thing that fingernails are, keratin). Depletion of wildlife can be detrimental to ecotourism which is a major legal resource for many African countries.

Then there are the poor poachers who do it to put food on the table either literally from the animal they hunt or selling the goods or crafting from them. They use less complicated (cheaper) traps like snares and go after smaller game typically (as seen in this event with the serval caught in the snare and that crouching guy that's around independent of the event, with the wire and a machete). They also hunt defensively for animals that kill their livestock. Their impact is less, but non-selective traps can kill animals it's not intended to much like large capture nets on fishing boats that go after one species of fish and snare others that must be thrown back. There is also a history of outlawed hunting for native Africans in European colonized Africa (as late as the 1900s) which causes some natives to disregard conservation laws. There are blurred motivations among poachers as well as with most anything.

I agree that poaching is wrong and also that not everyone behind it is evil. It's a complicated issue and I think reducing poverty in Africa would help with poaching in general too. I do appreciate that this event raises awareness especially with the graphic nature of it. It might be hard to look at, but it's a good glimpse at reality. I also think it's awesome that the site is donating partial income to their cause and not just settling with spreading awareness. At the same time, I don't care for the heavy handed way it's addressed with "evil humans" and other animals being "friends," but that's the same thing that makes me go meh for the karma system on here with its very simplistic in morality too. It's mostly personal though I understand why it is the way it is and why it doesn't need to be complicated.

My main issue with this event is that I'm bored with it already. Seeing the same mutilated animals over and over loses its shock value and there's nothing to keep you on your toes like February's flirting option to couple with this event. Yeah, there's traps but they take away such small stuff (1-3% energy, 1 impression) that I barely notice. Still, I do like the battling as I'm an EXP hog and maybe things will be spiced up when the secret area is unlocked? :)

Sources:

Rhino Poaching Statistics
Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set
Poverty, Poaching, and Trafficking: What are the links?

You have liked this post!

You have liked this post!

Here is the proof about the helicopter pilot who was shot down.

And in case you don't trust the BBC as a source, here are some more:
The Guardian
The Telegraph
National Geographic

And if you want another story about how poachers KILL people:
Rangers killed after trying to stop elephant poachers
Same story, but from the actual African Parks website

You have liked this post!

Well, if the "poachers" that don't do it just for greed and money and do it for actual resorches and kill the animal cleanly with no suffering they would be considered "Hunters" no?
Just wanted to point that out. c:

((Note I say killing animals off season or illegally is a whole different topic))

You have liked this post!

Certainly, not all poachers are cruel, heartless and vicious; just like all people really, some will kick a stray dog, some will pass by and some will take it home. Some poachers torture the animals, others try to be more humane. But so is the Lioden take on poaching. You dont always see them doing horrible things - sometimes just wandering about. And accordingly, not all Lioden actions are about killing them! In over half of the random events you get options to just scare them or sabotage their activity, chew their truck's tires or break their helicopters. If you're feeling strongly about humans - well, dont kill them when you meet them, choose scare or chase away options, or just pass by when none are available. Mind that all battles end in "exhausted and close to death, your opponent flees, leaving you victorious." - flees, not dies, just like you flee when you loose a battle. That's what good about Lioden events. None are ever one-sided. If you want to be nice to poachers, there are certainly options for it - naturally, they dont give as much items and currency as the others, being kind is always a challange, but they're there. ^_^

You have liked this post!

I don't understand what you mean Ren? Poaching is by legal definition illegally hunting or fishing. Intent isn't factored into it as accidentally catching a fish out of season and not throwing it back is still poaching even if the person meant no harm. All poachers are hunters, but not all hunters are poachers I guess would be a good way to put it.

You have liked this post!

Don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a magnificent book on gorilla concervation, "Gorillas in the mist". The author, Dian Fossey, was brutaly murdered by poachers for interfering with illegal trade of gorilla body parts. I strongly recommend reading it, because the book comprehensively analyses the problems of conservaton and poaching that you raised here. Plus the fait of the author sheds a lot of light on the true nature of poachers.
Personally, even though I understand the problem of poverty that leads to poaching and criminal activity in general, I still see poachers as dangerous criminals. Somehow there are people in Africa who manage to get by without becoming criminals, who make an honest living. Staff in parks and tourist lodges, so as not to go far. So it is possible to get by without getting into crime. Poaching is a choice. Recently there was a film on NG Channel on ivory trade. And those poachers looked very proud of themselves, not mentioning very well supplied. Guys like that won't appreciate an opportunity of an honest job cleaning toilets or swinging elefant poop.
Sorry, but I just don't buy their sob story. Just like drug dealers, poacher disgust me. Not every poor person is a criminal, but these guys made their choice despite other (albeit limited) options.
Also, I must add that I personally do not operate with such concepts as good or evil. Just don't believe things can be only black or only white. So to me poachers are criminals that must be dealt with accordingly, people who made the wrong choice and must pay for it.

You have liked this post!

Those examples fit commercial, militarised poachers who have access to a globalized market where things like gorilla parts and ivory have top value. Many of them aren't even natives, more like mercenaries. Subsistence poachers are the small scale people trying to make ends meat. They don't typically target animals like elephants, rhinos, gorillas, etc. It's easy to point out the right choice when standing outside of the situation and not suffering in it.

"Like any criminal, it depends on the person and the crime they commit. Some people are genuinely just trying survive. Others, it would be like robbing banks to put food on the table. Some of these commercial poachers are extremely wealthy, and more is just not enough.

We have actually retrained convicted poachers and once you can convince them that looking after wildlife is more beneficial than killing it, they make great rangers."
-Damien Mander of the International Antipoaching Foundation in an AMA (Link)

You have liked this post!

I realize now that what we are debating is more of the specific definition of poachers, rather than actual events by poachers. As my claim before, I have said that 'Not all poachers are cruel, greedy, or heartless'. To defend this, I must look at definitions instead of events done by poachers. I apologize to anyone that has sourced facts or argued about poachers do terrible things, like killing humans or of the such. However, I am arguing that not all poachers are cruel, greedy, or heartless. Unless every single poacher out there has done such a thing as murder of a human being for no moral reason, then I have no reason to debate your sources, as that is not what I am debating.

Due to this, I realize I put many of you in confusion! To clear things up, I will amend my argument accordingly to make my claim clearer:

Not all poachers are cruel, greedy, or heartless by definition.

Therefore, this makes the debate more concise. So what does that mean? I am saying that, by definition, not all poachers are cruel, greedy, or heartless. I apologize for the ignored arguments and confusion. If you wish to debate the topic of poachers killing humans, please do so on a different topic.

You have liked this post!

There are better ways to get money than slaughtering animals for money :/

If they know the terrain as well as they claim, why do they not offer to take tourists on guided walks? Animals don't have to suffer needlessly.

Poaching itself is cruel, not all animals are killed humanely. Many are snared, usually for days, sometimes even weeks, they end up in gnawing their on legs off, or choking to death on their own blood. When snared around the neck, the animal struggles to get free which results in the snare tightening to the point that it cuts into the animal's skin, the windpipe is crushed and blood flows into the lungs. It is a slow and painful death. Sure, the person who laid the snare out could be a nice person, but the action that they haven't taken is not nice. Do they realise the suffering their quarry goes through? Probably not, since the poacher is wonderful chap that's hoping to provide for his family, which is very little.

As for guns, the animal does not always die when shot. Sometimes they stumble around for hours, and the poachers will follow the blood trail. Usually the rhino or elephant is still very much alive when the tusks and horns are hacked off with machetes, they feel the pain and they shock and blood loss is what kills them. Again, slow and painful and frightening. Do they know the animal is suffering? Probably, it's pretty obvious. But I guess you think that's okay because the human doing the deed could be a decent human being.

You have liked this post!

Evanuris, I'd like to point something out to you.

'Many are snared, usually for days, sometimes even weeks,'
'could be a nice person'
'Usually the rhino or elephant is still very much alive when the tusks and horns are hacked off with machetes'

Do you get where I'm going here? In my claim, I say 'not all poachers are...' not most or some. You have proven over and over again, along with everyone else, that some or many poachers can be cruel, greedy, or heartless. However, you have not given me sufficient evidence that all poachers are cruel, greedy, or heartless. In order to do so, you would need to change the definition of poaching. And, in this case, I have the dictionary definitions here.

From Google:
'a person who hunts or catches game or fish illegally.'

From Dictionary.com:
'a person who trespasses on private property, especially to catch fish or game illegally.'

From Merriam-Webster:
'one that trespasses or steals'
'one who kills or takes wild animals (as game or fish) illegally'

Unless you wish to change the definition of poacher, these definitions do not list poachers being cruel, greedy, or heartless. Nor does it say they always torture the animals before death. As such, I stand my ground on my claim.

You have liked this post!

So, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't be so hard on poaching, because NOT ALL of poachers are bad.
This has a lot of similarities with the 'not all men' argument that has gained such popularity

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/27/not_all_men_how_discussing_women_s_issues_gets_derailed.html

' For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don’t need you to tell them.

Second, it’s defensive. When people are defensive, they aren’t listening to the other person; they’re busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I watched this happen on Twitter, over and again.'

Turn this to poachers. People know there are perhaps people doing illegal things for noble reasons. That is, as you liked to say, 'common sense'. However, by focusing on THOSE people, you are ignoring the much LARGER picture, which is the amount of poachers who are doing so for monetary gain, who ARE being cruel, and contributing to the extinction of a species (Black rhino, anyone?)

'Third, the people saying it aren’t furthering the conversation, they’re sidetracking it. The discussion isn’t about the men who aren’t a problem.'

The discussion about poaching and how it's a cruel, needless and greedy thing to do isn't about those who do it to provide. You're sidetracking the larger issue, which is tackling poaching and conservation efforts.

So no, maybe #notallpoachers are evil, cruel, doing it purely for money
but #yesallanimals killed by them are still dead, usually ones which we can't afford to lose any more of.

Do you really want to focus on the pedantic of 'but there COULD be a NICE poacher out there, what about the NICE poachers', when animals are literally being made extinct?

You have liked this post!

MothballSide, I understand where you are getting at. However, focusing on your feminist analogy for a moment, you talk about the girls who know that not all men are this or that, which is obviously normal. But take it to a different kind of woman who does not understand that not all men are such as this or that. Radical feminists, particularly the loudest and most sexist of them, believe that every single man deserve what they get. That they are all bad or evil, every single one of them.

I am not targeting anyone on this thread specifically. (You are all very intelligent people!) But I'm sure you have seen, MothballSide, some users on this site think very similar to radical feminists. Every single poacher is cruel or greedy in their mind. Like radical feminists, they believe that there is absolutely no exception whatsoever. Those are the people who I am trying to disprove.

I am not trying to debate the people who understand that not all poachers are cruel. I am trying to make the people who believe every single poacher is cruel and terrible to, at the very least, think about it.

Sadly, just like radical feminists, they are very hard to sway in a different direction.

You have liked this post!

And why is it so important to you to focus on the 1 or 2 who aren't bad, rather than paying attention to atrocities committed by the rest? It seems kind of weird, to me. There is enough awful acts committed by poachers, why do you need to ignore them

You sound a lot like the MRA's who put more importance on 'but some women DO accuse men falsely!' than the thousands of women who don't.

You have liked this post!