Hacker News Reader

Comment by chipgap98 | Hacker News Reader

If people are hitting the paywall the gist of the article is that lions are dangerous animals. People living in rural village are terrorized by lions and it has a serious impact on their way of life. Zimbabweans have a lot of respect for wild animals but aren't opposed to them being hunted. America once again stirred up a social media frenzy when they don't understand the issue at all.

View on HN

> America once again stirred up a social media frenzy when they don't understand the issue at all.

Except that America stirred up this issue only because it was done by a rich American. Zimbabwe aided by claiming it was an illegal poaching, arresting the guides and then asking America to arrest and extradite Walter Palmer.

Lions are scary when they aren't in a national park and being monitored by research scientists, but that's not what happened. This would be like a foreign tourist luring a wolf out of Yellowstone and then killing it outside of the park boundaries. It's straight up illegal poaching.

I'm glad we've had a trial, in which reliable facts were presented under oath and a complete and accurate description of Zimbabwe's hunting laws was made available to a dedicated jury, who then found that the facts indicated certain people were guilty of violating the law. Thanks to that important process, you're able to come here and make this statement for our benefit.

That's exactly what Zimbabwe is trying to accomplish with the arrest of the guides and requested extradition of the American hunter... If a Zimbabwean national had lured a wolf out of Yellowstone and taken its head and skin as a trophy you can bet the US would try and do the same (even though wolves are scary and the US has bigger problems than poaching).

My point was that we assert that someone's actions were criminal after the facts are presented at trial, not before. That is, unless we personally witnessed the act and are in possession of the facts. I didn't happen to be in Zimbabwe at the time, I haven't inspected the licenses and other relevant paperwork, and I'm not familiar with Zimbabwe's laws (but, realistically, I'm skeptical that they're properly enforced and that the judiciary is independent and professional). I'm certainly not going to substitute whatever partial/exaggerated/fabricated tales the media choose to present for those facts.

Saying that someone committed a crime is a Big Deal. In many jurisdictions, it is considered slander or libel unless you are making a formal charge. You need something a lot stronger than something you read in a newspaper to back it up.

I take issue with the thought of conservation only being necessary for cute, cuddly animals. There are significant benefits of maintaining biodiversity in the various biomes.

I agree. Especially when those "cute" animals have long ceased to have any significant role in their ecosystem due to their reduced numbers. I think conservation efforts should primarily focus on the ecosystem not single species. In fact it is not uncommon for environmentalist organizations to follow this approach, to the apparent detriment of the ability to stir up any interest among the wider public. Biological corridors? Mangrove forests? Too many humans take this as faceless abstract technical entities, even when their face is more often than not also a human face.

Completely agree with your entire comment.

You just need to look at wildlife re-introduction to see this is the case. Return wolves to an area (yellowstone) and Elk populations that were ruining new forest growth starts to come under control. The new growth encourages beavers to return to an ara, beavers improve wayerways, which improves fish stocks. Wolf killed elk also improve things for eagles, bears, coyotes and other scavengers.

> when they don't understand the issue at all.

This is what people understand - Lion Conservation status: Vulnerable

"The lion is a vulnerable species, having seen a major population decline in its African range of 30–50% per two decades during the second half of the 20th century. Lion populations are untenable outside designated reserves and national parks. Although the cause of the decline is not fully understood, habitat loss and conflicts with humans are currently the greatest causes of concern."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

I would say that the locals dont understand the issue any further than how it affects their own personal bubble.

They dont own the Lions, the Lions happen to live within the same lines drawn on a map as they do. The Lions neither know about or care about these lines. That in no way makes these Lions the propery of people from Zimbabwe.

In the same way that the rainforest destruction is everyones problem, not just a problem for those living in the rainforest.

What is the point of arguing who owns what? Does that refute the idea that people who are most directly affected should have a greater say?

Also the world hardly operates according to that concept of owning that you mention with regards to environmental protection. Is the international community pledging resources to support countries that choose to protect the environment instead of seeking so-called economic development? See for example this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuní-ITT_Initiative

> People living in rural village are terrorized by lions and it has a serious impact on their way of life.

Isn't this due to the explosion of human population levels though? We're encroaching more and more on the natural habitat of pretty much every species on the planet except for those in the deep ocean and even they are affected by us in other ways.

If you're hitting the paywall, go incognito.

>the issue

There are several issues. Not just one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com