CEO Bob Parsons under fire for killing elephant

I would think shooting elephants in those parts of the world by hired hunters are standard practice. It's like pest control.

I just didn't like the fact that all he did was tag along with the hunters, and now the News reads, "American CEO big hero for saving poor and desperate African farmer's crops".

 

there is a no hunting policy in my neighborhood, but we are allowed to kill gators once a year to help control population. If one of these gators could paint a picture, it looks like our community would be in more ****.

 

It's not that I know anything. It's a matter of what has been done and been successful. I'm merely talking about what other people far more knowledgeable than I have already done.

 

Rather you're trying to save you're own face for falling for Parson's lame line of BS. Proclaiming himself a do-gooder when he was just getting his jollies needlessly killing an elephant.

And it could be that he's done more harm than good and those actions will bring back the elephants, and maybe next time they'll kill someone.

 

Why do you keep saying it's needless. Needless from who's point of view? I bet the farmers were fricken tired of this big ass pest destroying their means of survival, they were probably rooting for it to be rid off permanently.

 

If his main concern was helping starving people, wouldn't there be another way
of doing it instead of killing elephants? I mean he his a multi-millionaire!

 

Then they could use one of the proven methods of keeping the elephants out of their crops that doesn't include killing them?

That's why I say it's needless. There are other options that have been shown to work. Use one.

 

One of your methods was an electric fence. Your solution for power was generators. So instead of using generators for say refrigerators that could house vaccines and medicine at the local clinic, you propose using them for an electric fence in order to avoid killing an elephant.

Do you really think that is a good use of resources?

 

Using a generator to protect crops to feed hungry villagers is close to be as good if not as good as using it for a refrigerator. But that's beside the point.


Why only use one generator? It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. I'm sure the goodhearted hero Parsons could spring for more than one generator.

In addition that was only of the methods.

Is killing elephants which could result in more elephants coming back and killing people a good use of resources?

 

Too many poor Americans worship the wealthy.

 

So the elephant's could potentially plan a payback attack on the villagers for Parson's taking one of their own? Damn, didn't think about that.

 

because our neighborhood has a lake? What does that say about our community? That we live next to the gulf and there is wildlife inhabiting the surrounding area.

 

Not knowing the situation I can't say for sure whether the elephant was so much of a threat that killing it was the only way but I certainly don't think Parsons is some humanitarian doing this out of the goodness of his heart. If he really cared about the people of Zimbabwe there are way more Africans dying from disease and lack of development. If he really wanted to help out the people of Africa as Cheetah noted above I suspect providing a water purification system will do more for those of that village than killing an elephant. Or for that matter what about starting a program to teach the villagers other ways to deal with the elephant problem and / or to start an ecotourism program so they can make money from the local elephants?

Also since this was Zimbabwe I am wondering how much of the money that Parson's spent to get the OK to shoot an elephant ended up in the hands of corrupt officials of Mugabe's regime.

 

No see many vaccines and drugs (that save millions of peoples lives) have to be refrigerated. Outside of third world countries this isn't really a problem.

The world has limited resources. (Not sure if you knew that) I doubt Parsons is going to give everyone a generator who needs it. So whatever resources we have, should be put to good use. For instance if he was willing to give 10 generators, ZERO of them should be used for an electric fence.

 

Actually that's true. Read one of the links I posted earlier in the thread. It talks about Elephants doing exactly that.

Here's another link if you'd like to read it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Get-out-of-the-way...-he-hasnt-forgotten.html

 

I understand about refrigerating medicine. My own insulin that keeps me alive needs refrigeration. But we were are talking about a village. Parsons didn't keep millions fed by saving the farmer's crops from the elephant.

As far as generators not being used for electric fences I thought one of the reasons shooting this elephant was good was that it destroyed the crops? All of a sudden that isn't a good enough reason use a generator.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I believe that protecting crops and feeding hungry farmers and providing some small amount of other money or goods they might get from the crops is worth a generator.

Again, though, you are ignoring the other many possible measures that have been shown to effectively keep elephants away from crops.

 

Yea, it's ridiculous. You can see the mentality that it is for sport just the way he took a picture with it. If he really wanted to help, he has a boatload of money and can help update new farming techniques, etc to help the village. If he really wanted to get rid of the elephant, he could've used a tranquilizer gun and there are just other ways without killing the thing

Why is an elephant more important? Another poster hit it because it is thinking, feeling thing. Has a family, studies have shown how they take care of their own, etc.

Sad thing to see people defending it and not seeing the just as easy alternatives