Actually they tried the normal way, where they didn't shoot and asked the poachers to surrender / tried to arrest them. But the rangers would get shot and the animals would continue to get poached.

Seeing this as a problem, a new executive order / law was passed allowing shoot at sight orders at national parks / protected zones.

Poaching has reduced, the number of rangers getting shot has reduced. The number of poachers getting shot has reduced (they don't wanna fuck around anymore).

Overall it has increased peace.

[–] ramenshaman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Endangered-animal lives are much more precious to me than humans-who-are-willing-to-murder-endangered-animals lives, so I disagree.

[–] Polymath@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It is important to note here how well-indoctrinated the US and Europe are to "point the finger" and absolve responsibility...

We don't refer to stuff as "deforestation," we call it "urban planning" or "development."
We don't talk about "poaching," we just accept that farmers and the agriculture industry finds natural predators inconvenient, so we allow them to kill off coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, etc.

We have just as many people doing similar, but for some reason we're only taught to lose our minds over conservation elsewhere, in the places where the US intentionally destabilizes (with Europe) to keep prices low for us. After all, it's what our economies are built upon: ruin everywhere, so we can call ourselves the heroes for killing off indigenous folks to areas just for the crime of living and wanting things to feel fair.

Check yourself. This isn't "the way"

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments