A couple of things. - I'm not opposed to killing an elephant if it's necessary. But there are ways to keep elephants out of the crops without killing them or using electric fences or generators. Chili Peppers isn't that big of a drain on resources, and would probably cheaper than ammo. - If the elephants come back for revenge, it's true guns could handle it again, but by then villagers may be dead or injured. Is that really worth it when there were other ways to begin with? I would rather be smart about handling the problem. - It doesn't have to be an either elephants or humans problem. The elephants don't have to be killed, and the humans don't have to lose their crops to elephants. It's not about choosing sides between elephants or humans. It's about finding a smarter more humane way to deal with the problem. In this case it wouldn't be more expensive, but when dealing with endangered species cheaper is not always better. - Harming an endangered species is never wise for humans, even if in the short term it seems like it is. For all the people arguing that humans win out and should because of being superior, a lot of people are looking at the simplest solutions. Why not use what makes humans special and find better solutions than Parsons getting his jollies shooting an elephant when it doesn't need to happen.
I'm not sure why you posted the same thing again. But I'll say again there are ways cheaper, smarter, more humane and effective to handle the elephant problem which keeps the elephants away from crops and still alive. If Humans have bigger brains why not use them?
Without humans and their guilt saving some of these animals...a lot of these endangered species would have been gone by now. But instead we keep them in protected areas and zoos to keep them alive when 'Strong will survive' would have killed them off by now. Elephants are large creatures. Along with their temper and ability to kill humans with ease they just aren't very compatible with living next to humans. They are also not very happy with living in captivity. Elephants have also been known to figure out these little tricks people have tried to keep them away and as the article says do not always work.
I did the read the article and they tried maybe one or two of the methods that have already been shown to be effective elsewhere.
I can't believe there are 9 pages and not one of you all mentioned Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" short story. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/ This is the first thing I thought about.
Look, FB, i like you, and as a general rule i agree with and respect what you have to say, but I feel like we're coming at this from two very different angles, so I'm going to drop it. I just want you to know I feel where you're coming from, but i wholeheartedly disagree.
that's fine. I'm ok with disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree, and it isn't a problem from me.
I agree, Parsons should've shot the farmer and his family so the elephants can step on all the craps they want.
This is awesome. Kind of stupid for him to claim he was doing it only to help the community. It was for sport, but it had an out for him to spin. I guarantee if there wasn't an "elephant problem" over there and it was just a hunger problem, he would not have been over there handing out food. He got to have his jollies, while feeding a town and saving crops. Even if the latter was just an result of his hunting, it still did do some good. His only mistake was posting this on Twitter. You gotta be smarter than that.
