GoDaddy CEO Goes Elephant Hunting

[Outamyhead]

And it all comes back to humans. We're evading elephants migrating paths to water holes and food sources. They have no option but to travel through these villages, as they have done so before man even settled there.

Rocks and sticks are usually thrown at them in during their trek through villages, and all they're trying to do is survive. Just like you or I, except in the wild and in some of the harshest conditions. We have much to learn from them, and there is no room for American's, or anyone for that matter, to go play hero and kill such a creature.

Wait, did you read what you just posted?

People have intentionally moved away from elephant migration routes, and the elephants have followed the settlements, in order to survive?

I'm still against this method of controlling rogue elephants by the rich and sometimes famous getting to pull the trigger and potentially making a situation worse, as that should be left to the professionals.

And your comparing Africa to the US, there is no safeways down the street for them, so an elephant can feed a village for weeks if not months, I have no problem with hunting for survival, it's the meaningless hunting I have issues with.

Sometimes humans have to intervene in this manner, but a guy that has no business being there, killing an animal for reasons he doesn't understand, is unacceptable.

 

[vengence]

Well for starters, deer are not a threatened species. I don't condone hunting, period.

For starters, the places elephants are being hunted is where they have TOO MANY ELEPHANTS not where they are threatened.

Humans seem to have this complex that everything is at our disposal. We're civilized, no longer hunt and gather, and fully capable of making sound decisions that preserve our environment.

You seem to have no clue that bag limits are designed to managing game populations. Infact, hunters have an insane vested interest in preserving game populations so they can continue to hunt. They contribute more to population management and game preservation than any other group on the planet.

I'm a vegetarian, have been for five years, so quit this "if you eat meat you're a hypocrite" attack. I'll even go a step further and argue that no, you're not a hypocrite if you eat meat but want to defend the needless killing of wildlife.

I never made that attack. You're a vegetarian, I'm a carnavore.

These animals are commercially farmed. Massive difference then going out and killing an animal. Pain is pain, death is death, horrible conditions, steroid enhanced diets .. I will not argue that.

Well elephants are commercially farmed as well. So are deer. Except that elephants and deer are analogous to "free range" chickens and cows. Hunters go out and kill things. It's a requirement to eat something is that you kill it. Hunters don't go out and pick weapons that are going to cause slow painful deaths. It's inefficent and will waste game if you can't find it. Hunters all want the same thing from a weapon, 1 shot, instant kill. And most of the time with good shot placement, that's what you get. A hydrostatic shock that ruptures blood vessels in the brain and causes instant death.

Just imagine though, if everyone in the world decided they're going to go out and start hunting for their food. Do you realize how quickly everything would be killed off? We've created a system of commercialized killing to support our palette for meat.

That's a pretty silly argument. Take the flip side, what kind of a disaster would it be if suddenly everyone decided to give up meat. How quickly would we kill off all the veggies? We'd have famine overnight! The world would end!

 

[Phoenix333]

I'm a vegetarian, have been for five years, so quit this "if you eat meat you're a hypocrite" attack.

Have you ever seen a harvester at work? All those little wild animals that live in the farmer's fields tend to get gibbed and ground up into bloody stew while your soy or green beans or whatever vegetable you eat is getting pulled and thrown into the back of the truck. Farmland displaces natural habitat, so wild animals have less room to eat, and farmers routinely trap and shoot wild animals that destroy their crops while "just trying to survive", as happened on this video with the rich guy killing an elephant. So consider that being a vegetarian does not free you from being involved in habitat destruction and slaughter of wildlife. If you're being a vegetarian because you think it's healthier, that's one thing, but if you think it's causing less pain and suffering of animals... well, now you know.

You need to learn something about hunting as well. Hunting is highly regulated, and not only is it regulated it is necessary. Because humans chop up habitat in unnatural ways and displace animals, and have removed normal predators from the environment such as wolves and cougars (in the US at least), the animals' breeding rate becomes a problem. Deer are a road hazard, and overgrazing causes starvation and disease when there are too many of them. Hunting them culls the herd down to a livable size. In addition, part of the money from the sale of ammunition and hunting licenses and wildlife checking goes straight to conservation efforts and protection of endangered species. The meat from a kill is seldom ever wasted. How many people do you know that eat roadkill? Which would you prefer, a bullet to the heart and the animal being eaten, or a car accident where everyone loses? Since man has altered the environment and caused the problem, man must manage the situation since nature is not able to function in its normal manner anymore.

Until the human race becomes extinct man has to take responsibility for the changes in the landscape that he causes, and the resultant effects on nature. Hunting is a part of that, and a necessary part. It may be something you do not like, but life is full of unpleasant things that are necessary. Choose to be a vegetarian if you prefer, but please learn the whole picture and try not to look down your nose so much at hunting. Life requires balance, and hunting helps to maintain that balance.

 

[motomonkey]

Well for starters, deer are not a threatened species. I don't condone hunting, period.

Humans seem to have this complex that everything is at our disposal. We're civilized, no longer hunt and gather, and fully capable of making sound decisions that preserve our environment.

I'm a vegetarian, have been for five years, so quit this "if you eat meat you're a hypocrite" attack. I'll even go a step further and argue that no, you're not a hypocrite if you eat meat but want to defend the needless killing of wildlife. These animals are commercially farmed. Massive difference then going out and killing an animal. Pain is pain, death is death, horrible conditions, steroid enhanced diets .. I will not argue that.

Just imagine though, if everyone in the world decided they're going to go out and start hunting for their food. Do you realize how quickly everything would be killed off? We've created a system of commercialized killing to support our palette for meat.

Have a complex that everything is at our disposal? well, yes, it is. comes with being the top predator on the planet, thumbs, large brains, killer instinct and all that. this assumption that a treefrog or turtle has as much right to live as I do, or you, is a pipedream of people that live well and have never had to struggle to survive

Never worked in a slaughterhouse I take it? or grew up on a farm? nothing pretty about putting a bullet or a bolt from a killing gun into the head of a steer. but, thats life. its not pretty. death by any means, to anything, is an unpleasant sight. its also part of of the world we live in. everything dies, and unless your one of those people that think we should have a mass killoff of Humans to "preserve the planet" like Al Gore, (yeah, he wrote a article in his youth that we need a good virus that would kill off 90% of humanity) you learn to live with it. and if you DO think we need fewer people, thank you for volunterring. if you can't manage it yourself, I can offer some advice on how to reduce your Carbon footprint, for eternity.

but, seriously

Most people do not realize that revenue from taxes on sporting goods, firearms, license fees and ammo, are what finance most state conservation programs. whatever you might think of hunters now, if it wasn't for them there would be no Deer, Turkey, Elk, Otters, beavers etc, in most states east of the Mississippi. does that mean I condone all hunting? no, but its a fact that it serves a useful purpose, and a well placed bullet or arrow is a hella lot cleaner way to die than starving from overpopulation or being crushed by a car.


Most hardcore earthfirsters are upper middleclass white college grads, that have been indoctrinated by liberal college professors into this view that all we need for Utopia, is a lot less people. we will just need to keep the "right kind" of people. most of which wear Birkenstocks and drive Volvos. or Prius's nowadays I suppose.

Would be funny as hell, if it wasn't for the Chinese and Brazilians and such waiting for the Americans and western Euro's to kill our silly selves off to preserve the Spotted owl.

 

[PersonalJ]

Sometimes I wish I could dress up like a 19th century hunter and shoot animals bigger than a car in Africa.

 

[elektronisch]

Have a complex that everything is at our disposal? well, yes, it is. comes with being the top predator on the planet, thumbs, large brains, killer instinct and all that. this assumption that a treefrog or turtle has as much right to live as I do, or you, is a pipedream of people that live well and have never had to struggle to survive

Never worked in a slaughterhouse I take it? or grew up on a farm? nothing pretty about putting a bullet or a bolt from a killing gun into the head of a steer. but, thats life. its not pretty. death by any means, to anything, is an unpleasant sight. its also part of of the world we live in. everything dies, and unless your one of those people that think we should have a mass killoff of Humans to "preserve the planet" like Al Gore, (yeah, he wrote a article in his youth that we need a good virus that would kill off 90% of humanity) you learn to live with it. and if you DO think we need fewer people, thank you for volunterring. if you can't manage it yourself, I can offer some advice on how to reduce your Carbon footprint, for eternity.

but, seriously

Most people do not realize that revenue from taxes on sporting goods, firearms, license fees and ammo, are what finance most state conservation programs. whatever you might think of hunters now, if it wasn't for them there would be no Deer, Turkey, Elk, Otters, beavers etc, in most states east of the Mississippi. does that mean I condone all hunting? no, but its a fact that it serves a useful purpose, and a well placed bullet or arrow is a hella lot cleaner way to die than starving from overpopulation or being crushed by a car.


Most hardcore earthfirsters are upper middleclass white college grads, that have been indoctrinated by liberal college professors into this view that all we need for Utopia, is a lot less people. we will just need to keep the "right kind" of people. most of which wear Birkenstocks and drive Volvos. or Prius's nowadays I suppose.

Would be funny as hell, if it wasn't for the Chinese and Brazilians and such waiting for the Americans and western Euro's to kill our silly selves off to preserve the Spotted owl.

This isn't nature. In nature there isn't a welfare system, laws, and other systems in place to let the weak and less fortunate prosper. In nature, they die. So to when you say we're at the top of the food chain, who exactly are you talking about?

As for being one of those radicals who thinks we need a virus to wipe out a percentage of the human population, no. We're already on track to wiping ourselves out. Once the oil runs dry, and it will, you'll see just how long you're capable of surviving in nature.

I am simply not for hunting. I can appreciate the outdoors without a rifle in my hand.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Well for starters, deer are not a threatened species. I don't condone hunting, period.

Yes but deer populations can grow way out of control simply because us humans have knocked out apex predators, say all you want about that second bit of cruel humanity. Fact of the matter is killing deer and keeping a particular population low can very easily help keep populations of deer healthy as a whole, where as too many deer and disease could run rampant (this has happened, this isn't just a blind theory), and deer population can drop dramatically as a result.


Now a friend from Africa enlightened me to situations like this, where rich people are allowed to shoot animals. They do this to help keep populations under control, of animals that the game wardens themselves would have shot, but why shoot the elephant themselves if some rich American (or other country) will pay them a boatload of money so they can do it? In essences allowing rich people to shoot them (at a cost), allows them to use the money to further save/help the game preserves.

 

[elektronisch]

Have you ever seen a harvester at work? All those little wild animals that live in the farmer's fields tend to get gibbed and ground up into bloody stew while your soy or green beans or whatever vegetable you eat is getting pulled and thrown into the back of the truck. Farmland displaces natural habitat, so wild animals have less room to eat, and farmers routinely trap and shoot wild animals that destroy their crops while "just trying to survive", as happened on this video with the rich guy killing an elephant. So consider that being a vegetarian does not free you from being involved in habitat destruction and slaughter of wildlife. If you're being a vegetarian because you think it's healthier, that's one thing, but if you think it's causing less pain and suffering of animals... well, now you know.

You need to learn something about hunting as well. Hunting is highly regulated, and not only is it regulated it is necessary. Because humans chop up habitat in unnatural ways and displace animals, and have removed normal predators from the environment such as wolves and cougars (in the US at least), the animals' breeding rate becomes a problem. Deer are a road hazard, and overgrazing causes starvation and disease when there are too many of them. Hunting them culls the herd down to a livable size. In addition, part of the money from the sale of ammunition and hunting licenses and wildlife checking goes straight to conservation efforts and protection of endangered species. The meat from a kill is seldom ever wasted. How many people do you know that eat roadkill? Which would you prefer, a bullet to the heart and the animal being eaten, or a car accident where everyone loses? Since man has altered the environment and caused the problem, man must manage the situation since nature is not able to function in its normal manner anymore.

Until the human race becomes extinct man has to take responsibility for the changes in the landscape that he causes, and the resultant effects on nature. Hunting is a part of that, and a necessary part. It may be something you do not like, but life is full of unpleasant things that are necessary. Choose to be a vegetarian if you prefer, but please learn the whole picture and try not to look down your nose so much at hunting. Life requires balance, and hunting helps to maintain that balance.

You mention a few good points, and I appreciate the way you engage in debate.

I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that hunting an elephant is helping to maintain that balance. This is a species that is threatened for extinction, what order of balance are we trying to achieve by tipping the scale further in the wrong direction?

 

[sfsuphysics]

BTW, I don't think I could kill a deer either unless it was out of desperation for food, i.e. I'm not a hunter

 

[Draax]

You mention a few good points, and I appreciate the way you engage in debate.

I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that hunting an elephant is helping to maintain that balance. This is a species that is threatened for extinction, what order of balance are we trying to achieve by tipping the scale further in the wrong direction?

Balancing a check book ... mostly.

 

[Chimel]

The topic is GoDaddy CEO shooting elephants, not PETA, who you can trust for making a mess of things using the wrong arguments even when they have a right point.

The real issue here is the arrogance of rich white colons pay tens of thousands of dollars for a hunting permit that allows them to kill grass-feeding endangered species at the other side of the world.
There is no right justification for that. He could have done a photo safari or even better, help sedate and relocate the elephant to an area with decreased population. Killing a defenseless animal for a trophy is really nothing a hunter should be proud of.

I already decided long ago that I'll never have a GoDaddy account, since they started ads with naked girls. The CEO's latest act just confirmed he is a total dork and I will never support his company, the board should fire this cliché of a man.

 

[Phoenix333]

You mention a few good points, and I appreciate the way you engage in debate.

I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that hunting an elephant is helping to maintain that balance. This is a species that is threatened for extinction, what order of balance are we trying to achieve by tipping the scale further in the wrong direction?

Thank you. I prefer to share information instead of arguing, as I find argument to never resolve anything. Historically speaking, it has been the ivory trade that has decimated elephant populations in Africa more than territorial encroachment and habitat loss. From what I can see of this specific hunt a single bull elephant was killed. A controlled hunt that culls a single animal from the herd will have the effect of the herd avoiding that territory and grazing elsewhere. In the long term, the herd will survive so the effect should be minimal.

A controlled hunt like this where it is a "last resort" situation where other efforts to discourage the elephants from intruding on farmland have failed - assuming they are being truthful about that aspect of this - should not contribute significantly to endangerment of the elephant population, and if the money paid by the CEO of GoDaddy is used to further conservation efforts in Africa, then that's good as well. Poaching is the serious threat to the elephant population, and the money used from this sort of singular hunt... if it's earmarked to fight poachers, then the net effect can be positive. I hope that's how they are doing things... with money you always have the question of how corrupt the officials may be, but either way, without the money there will be no anti-poaching efforts at all. More support for anti-poaching efforts means fewer wild elephants murdered for their tusks and left to rot, which is a good thing. If the occasional removal of one problem elephant can help anti-poaching efforts that could protect dozens, then that's how the balance could be tipped in the right direction.

 

[badcaps]

I already decided long ago that I'll never have a GoDaddy account, since they started ads with naked girls.

salon.com and your non-fat chai latte is that way --->

 

[vengence]

The topic is GoDaddy CEO shooting elephants, not PETA, who you can trust for making a mess of things using the wrong arguments even when they have a right point.

The real issue here is the arrogance of rich white colons pay tens of thousands of dollars for a hunting permit that allows them to kill grass-feeding endangered species at the other side of the world.
There is no right justification for that. He could have done a photo safari or even better, help sedate and relocate the elephant to an area with decreased population. Killing a defenseless animal for a trophy is really nothing a hunter should be proud of.

I already decided long ago that I'll never have a GoDaddy account, since they started ads with naked girls. The CEO's latest act just confirmed he is a total dork and I will never support his company, the board should fire this cliché of a man.

He killed an elephant that was in an overpopulated area. The elephant provided meat to the local villagers. The hunt created jobs for the locals. You can twist and shout all you want, but the end result is everything the man did was not only legal, but morally responsible.

 

[Matrices]

PETA's protest is not on behalf of the Africans; it's on behalf of the elephant. Since the organization's aim is to protect animals, there is no logical basis for attacking PETA here for fulfilling their organizational purpose.

Now, if you want to critique that organization purpose, that's a separate matter for a separate thread. For the purposes of this thread, let's critique the action itself.

Is there any bravery in killing a giant intelligent animal with a gun? Answer: no; self evident. Go read Orwell's essay about shooting an elephant in Burma and I challenge you to answer otherwise afterward.

Was the elephant shot because there was an "overpopulation" of elephants? Answer, no; the elephant was shot because it was eating food on farmland created by an irresponsible society that's rapidly expanding into the natural habitat of the animals.

The whole thing was a spectacle, an indulgence, and an exercise in absurdity. Rich white man travels to Africa to indulge his 19th century whim and lathers it in a "humanitarian" guise to deflect criticism.

Hunting needs to be responsible and ethical. Elephants, among the four of five smartest species on the planet and in danger of disappearing, do not deserve to be hunted, killed, and savaged by wealthy elites and mobs of villagers.

 

[Chimel]

He killed an elephant that was in an overpopulated area. The elephant provided meat to the local villagers. The hunt created jobs for the locals. You can twist and shout all you want, but the end result is everything the man did was not only legal, but morally responsible.

I hope you're joking. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that he could easily have relocated the elephant to an underpopulated area. He could also have given $50K or whatever he paid for the trip and permit to help the villagers establish a sustainable farm raising chickens or growing food all year round, instead of providing just meat for just a few days.

Nobody contests the legality of this deed, although I deplore it, but it is morally irresponsible, and it's probably bad for business too. Actually, as for the legal aspect, I thought ivory trading was illegal worldwide, it seems hypocritical that killing for the ivory trophy is legal, but then IANAL.

 

[vengence]

I hope you're joking. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that he could easily have relocated the elephant to an underpopulated area. He could also have given $50K or whatever he paid for the trip and permit to help the villagers establish a sustainable farm raising chickens or growing food all year round, instead of providing just meat for just a few days.

Nobody contests the legality of this deed, although I deplore it, but it is morally irresponsible, and it's probably bad for business too. Actually, as for the legal aspect, I thought ivory trading was illegal worldwide, it seems hypocritical that killing for the ivory trophy is legal, but then IANAL.

And you could have given your life savings to any number of causes, but you didn't therefore you really don't care about anything but your self. See how stupid your argument is?

 

[motomonkey]

This isn't nature. In nature there isn't a welfare system, laws, and other systems in place to let the weak and less fortunate prosper. In nature, they die. So to when you say we're at the top of the food chain, who exactly are you talking about?

As for being one of those radicals who thinks we need a virus to wipe out a percentage of the human population, no. We're already on track to wiping ourselves out. Once the oil runs dry, and it will, you'll see just how long you're capable of surviving in nature.

I am simply not for hunting. I can appreciate the outdoors without a rifle in my hand.

Thank you for clarifying that, I tend to agree with you on the survival of the fittest issue, and a large part of that includes the most fit culture as well as the individual. Humans have always prospered not because we could outfight lions in single combat, but as organized groups. what nations will hang together when the great energy crunch arrives? I hold out some hope, that technology will pull our arses from the fire once more, in the form of Fusion power or some other major breakthrough before things go to hell. the glass is half full, I suppose.

as far as me surviving in nature, I would like to think I have a bit more chance than most. I did grow up in the country, where we farmed and hunted to supplement a lower than average income and spent a large chunk of my free time doing things city dwellers pay good money for nowadays. adding that to survival training in the military, and a well developed sense of paranoia, hopefully I could pull it off. but knowing how truly difficult it is, I'd rather just stay at home in front of a warm fire. I don't go camping any more, I LIKE hot showers, and clean sheets. the movies and books tend to overlook the cold, the damp, and the dirt. I suspect that a large part of the appeal to hunting for some, is the feeling of "yeah, I am so roughing it out here in the deer camp" right.


I certainly respect your views on hunting. a lot of attitudes towards hunting are cultural in nature. I grew up in a culture that embraced it. most people do not.

 

[Gorankar]

Jealousy is an ugly thing.
He is rich and white and a CEO, therefore anything he does is wrong.

All this nonsense has made me hungry for dolphin fin, and Northern spotted owl eggs.

 

[Starcrossed]

 

[Chimel]

And you could have given your life savings to any number of causes, but you didn't therefore you really don't care about anything but your self. See how stupid your argument is?

Did Bob Parsons spend his life savings on this safari? Now whose argument is stupid?
And I give $50 a month to Oxfam already, the only org that deals with kids and is not religious that I could find, so double stupid. Triple stupid, as my company doubles that amount.

 

[fattypants]

I'm no militant animal lover, but I am against suffering. I have no problem slaughtering animals by the billions, provided that they are treated humanely in life and killed quickly.

Also, I have a special place in my heart for elephants. Animals that are self aware and experience grief over their dead are not like other animals. Their personality traits bring them closer to humans than any other creatures on earth, and even if one is raised and killed humanely, it has an impact on the survivors. Some people say "they're just animals", but they're not just animals.

 

[Gorankar]

Looks tasty.

 

[Hornet]

I'm no militant animal lover, but I am against suffering. I have no problem slaughtering animals by the billions, provided that they are treated humanely in life and killed quickly.

Also, I have a special place in my heart for elephants. Animals that are self aware and experience grief over their dead are not like other animals. Their personality traits bring them closer to humans than any other creatures on earth, and even if one is raised and killed humanely, it has an impact on the survivors. Some people say "they're just animals", but they're not just animals.

Wow, learned something new today about animals showing empathy for the dead ones
Thanks for sharing those infos

 

[vengence]

Did Bob Parsons spend his life savings on this safari? Now whose argument is stupid?
And I give $50 a month to Oxfam already, the only org that deals with kids and is not religious that I could find, so double stupid. Triple stupid, as my company doubles that amount.

Oh wow 50 whole dollars? Man what a big spender! This guy gave more in one hunt than you'll give in your whole life time.

 

[vengence]

I'm no militant animal lover, but I am against suffering. I have no problem slaughtering animals by the billions, provided that they are treated humanely in life and killed quickly.

Also, I have a special place in my heart for elephants. Animals that are self aware and experience grief over their dead are not like other animals. Their personality traits bring them closer to humans than any other creatures on earth, and even if one is raised and killed humanely, it has an impact on the survivors. Some people say "they're just animals", but they're not just animals.

Which is why they only hunt the males. There isn't the social impact on the herd as there is with the females.

 

[Shambler]

This thread needs a little Groucho:
"Last night I shot an elephant in my Pajamas and how he got in my pajamas I'll never know."